1] See below the observations made by the Commission as a whole in footnotes to articles 27 and 28, and to the Schedules (the latter annexed to the Protocol hereunder).

2] On the adoption of the report of the first special session the Chairman formally declared, without dissent, that the revised draft Protocol on Psychotropic Substances did not cover, and was not intended to cover, alcohol and tobacco.

* [Reproduced from U.N. Document E/4785 of February 1970. The revised text of the Draft Protocol on Psychotropic Substances was adopted by the Commission on Narcotics on January 29, 1970. On March 24, 1970, the Economic and Social Council adopted a resolution requesting the Secretary - General to convene a conference of plenipotentiaries in 1971 for the adoption the Protocol on Psychotropic Substances.

[The annexes referred to in the agreement have not been published.

[The revised text has been submitted to governments and will be used as the working draft at the 1971 conference . The earlier draft of the protocol appears at 8 International Legal Materials 769 (1969.]

3] The Commission understood that the term “production” did not cover the growing of plants for ornamental purposes, nor plants growing wild.

4] Mexico reserved its position regarding the term “production”, and considered that it should not apply to plants like peyote or various species of Psilocybe when they grow wild. Mexico could not undertake to eradicate or destroy these plants.

5] The representative of India expressed the view that the degree of seriousness of the public health and social problem should be the overriding consideration in regard to recommendations as to the Schedule in which a substance is to be included.

6] Ghana, India, Iran, Jamaica, Sweden, Turkey and the United Arab Republic proposed that paragraph 5 should read:

7] Ghana, India, Iran, Jamaica, Sweden, Turkey and the United Arab Republic proposed that the last sentence of paragraph 6 should read:

8] The USSR and some other delegations proposed that the Secretary-General should communicate the decision to “all States”.

9] Some delegations were generally opposed to the right of non-acceptance. However, they felt that if this right had to be exercised at all by any Party, the provisions of articles 10 and 14, inter alia, should be included in the requirements to be observed by the dissenting Party.

10] The USSR and some other delegations proposed that the Secretary-General should communicate the Council’s decision to “all States”.

11] A minority of the Commission believed that non-acceptance pursuant to paragraph 7 by a Party of a decision of the Commission should automatically lead to review by the Council, and that the Council’s decision should be binding on non-accepting Parties. To these ends they supported the following text for paragraph 8:

11] The request for review shall be sent to the Secretary-General together with all relevant information upon which the request for review is based;

• (b)

  (b) The Secretary-General shall transmit copies of the request for review, or of the notice of non-acceptance, and relevant information to the Commission, to the World Health Organization and to all Parties, inviting them to submit comments within ninety days. All comments received shall be submitted to the Council for consideration;

• (c)

  (c) The Council may confirm, alter or reverse the decision of the Commission. Notification of the Council’s decision shall be transmitted to all States Members of the United Nations, to non-member States Parties to this Protocol [the USSR and some other delegations proposed communication to “all States”], to the Commission, to the World Health Organization and to the Board.

• (d)

  (d) If the Council confirms or alters the decision of the Commission, a Party shall comply with the decision of the Council, notwithstanding any notice of non-acceptance that it has made.”

12] The numbering of articles in this text of the revised draft Protocol is the same as during the discussion at the first special session of the Commission on Narcotic Drugs. At the conference for the adoption of the Protocol, it might be considered useful to drop temporary numbering; to allow for this, beginning with article 2 bis above the future re-numbering is indicated in brackets. (Article 23 bis is also taken into account.)

13] The delegation of Japan reserved its position on paragraph 3 of article 2 bis as a whole.

14] The USSR and some other delegations proposed that the decision should be communicated to “all States”.

15] The USSR and some other delegations proposed that the Secretary-General should communicate the Commission’s decision to “all States”.

16] The USSR considered there should be an adjustment between this article and article 6.

17] Canada considered that the reservation in sub-paragraph (b), that applies to substances in Schedules III and IV, should also apply to substances in Schedule II.

18] A number of delegations expressed the opinion that substances in Schedule III should be supplied under this paragraph by licensed pharmacists only, while only substances in Schedule IV could be supplied by other retailers.

19] India considered that substances in Schedule III should also be subject to this paragraph.

*] See specimen form prepared by the Secretariat in the appendix.

20] The United Kingdom did not accept that in respect of substances in Schedules III and IV the government of an exporting country should be obliged under this article to apply the system of export authorizations for specific consignments instead of the system of export declaration appropriate to these substances under article 11. It therefore proposed substitution of the word “export” in the last sentence of paragraph 1 by the word “import”.

21] Some delegations considered that substances in Schedule III should be covered in sub-paragraph (a) of paragraph 3 rather than in sub-paragraph (b), and that subparagraph (a) should require statistical reports on quantities consumed.

22] The Commission invited attention, during later stages of consideration of the revised draft Protocol, to the difficulty in applying this provision, which is drawn from article 15 of the Single Convention, if the Commission is to meet only biennially in the future. Switzerland also referred to the difficulty for the Commission to deal with both narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances in addition, if its regular sessions are limited to three weeks.

23] The representatives of Hungary, the USSR and Yugoslavia expressed the view that the expenses should not be a reason for increasing the regular budget of the World Health Organization, They considered that the text of article 6 of the Single Convention would be more acceptable.

24] The representative of the USSR stated that article 21, paragraph 1, under which some States were denied the possibility of becoming Parties to the Protocol being drafted, was discriminatory in character. The Protocol dealt with matters which were of interest to all States and its purpose was to secure the participation of all countries in efforts to combat the social evil represented by the misuse of psychotropic substances. In accordance with the principle of sovereign equality, it should therefore be open to participation by all States.

The USSR statement was supported by a minority of delegations.

25] In the opinion of the USSR representative and of a number of other representatives the inclusion of this article in the Protocol is unacceptable, as it conflicts with the Declaration of I960 on the granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples (General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960).

26] The USSR and some other delegations considered that this reference to dependent territories was also unacceptable (see footnote to Article 23).

27] Some delegations preferred the text of article 47 of the Single Convention.

28] India and the USSR, supported by other delegations, proposed the following text for paragraph 2:

29] The Commission did not discuss these articles since it was of the opinion they would more appropriately be the subject of full consideration at the conference for the adoption of the Protocol.

30] In discussing the text of the draft Protocol, the Commission took these Schedules into account although it considered them to be of a provisional nature, (cf. Chapter II, para.21, and article 2 of the revised draft Protocol.)

a] Separate forms should be completed in respect of each psychotropic substance exported in bulk and for each pharmaceutical preparation containing psychotropic substance(s);

b] the international non-proprietary name proposed by the World Health Organization should be used where such is available, otherwise, the name used in the International Pharmacopoeia or the national pharmacopoeia or formulary. Failing this, the chemical designation should be given;

c] e.g. tablets, 10,000, each containing dexamphetamine sulfate 2.5 mg and cyclobarbital 35 mg.