View previous stories
	UN highlights new tool enabling individual complaints on economic, social and cultural rights by UN News, ICJ, ESCR-NET   6 February 2013   The United Nations has welcomed the upcoming availability of a new human rights instrument which, for the first time, will allow victims to file complaints at the international level about violations of their economic, social and cultural rights, placing those rights on equal footing with all other human rights.   The new complaints mechanism, established by the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, will allow individuals or groups to file a complaint with the UN if their rights – such as inadequate access to food, housing or work – are violated by a Member State that is party to the Protocol.   “The entry into force of the Optional Protocol is a major breakthrough,” UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay said in a press release.   “The Protocol will provide an important platform to expose abuses linked to poverty, discrimination and neglect, which up until now victims have had to endure without any possible recourse at the international level. It will provide a way for individuals, who may otherwise be isolated and powerless, to make the international community aware of their situation,” she added.   The Protocol, adopted during the General Assembly’s December 2008 meeting to commemorate the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, opened for signature the following year.   On 5 February, Uruguay became the 10th Member State to ratify the Protocol, thereby enabling it to enter into force in three months time, on 5 May. Argentina, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Ecuador, El Salvador, Mongolia, Portugal, Slovakia and Spain have also ratified it.   “With the entry into force of the Optional Protocol, a jurisprudence will now be developed that will help define the scope of application of economic, social and cultural rights and outline adequate remedies for victims,” Ms. Pillay said.   The High Commissioner strongly encouraged other States among the 160 that are already party to the Covenant to ratify the Optional Protocol as soon as possible.   “The Protocol makes a strong and unequivocal statement about the equal value and importance of all human rights and the need for strengthened legal protection of economic, social and cultural rights in particular,” Ms. Pillay said. http://www2.ohchr.org/english/ohchrreport2012/web_en/allegati/5_Poverty.pdf   December 2008   New human rights instrument closes vital protection gap, says High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay.   The United Nations human rights chief has welcomed the General Assembly’s adoption of an important new instrument to strengthen the protection of economic, social and cultural rights, stressing that it gives a voice to victims of violations.   “The approval of the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights is of singular importance by closing a historic gap,” stated UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay.   The Protocol, adopted during the Assembly’s 10 December meeting commemorating the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, will enable victims to complain about violations of the rights enshrined in the Covenant at the international level for the first time.   Ms. Pillay stressed that the Protocol provides a voice to victims of human rights violations. It also “makes them better equipped to enlist the international community’s help to address their plight.”   The High Commissioner noted that the Universal Declaration for Human Rights chose not to rank rights. “On the contrary, it recognized the equal status of political and civil rights with economic, social and cultural rights, and underlined that all rights are inextricably linked,” she said. “Violations of a set of rights reverberate on other rights and enfeeble them all.”   Protecting Human Rights beyond Borders - International Commission of Jurists.   Economic, social and cultural rights (ESCR) include the rights to decent work, an adequate standard of living, housing, food, water and sanitation, social security, health, and education.   ESCR are thus as essential as the freedom of expression or the right to a fair trial for ensuring human dignity.   States have repeatedly affirmed their belief in the universality and interdependence of all human rights, and their commitment to treat economic, social and cultural rights on an equal footing with civil and political rights.   To date, 160 States have ratified the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and are therefore obligated to respect, protect and fulfil these rights.   Major obstacles remain   However, despite the guarantee of ESCR under international law, victims of violations of these rights still face major obstacles in accessing justice, effective remedies and reparations.   The ICJ is working with various actors at the national, regional and international levels to identify and address these obstacles, ensure accountability and combat impunity in cases of violations of ESCR. At the international level, we advocate for stronger standards and mechanisms for the enforcement and protection of ESCR.   This includes promoting ratification of the new optional protocol to the ICESCR by States that, once in force, will allow victims of ESCR violations that have been unable to obtain justice at the national level to bring their case to the relevant UN Committee for review.   http://www.icj.org/themes/economic-social-and-cultural-rights/   February 2013 (Escr-net)   Economic, Social and Cultural Rights now fully justiciable at the International Level.   The Optional Protocol on ESC Rights Comes into Force in May 2013.   Very soon, those who have experienced violations of economic, social and cultural rights will have a new opportunity to access justice.   The Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (the Optional Protocol), will allow individuals and groups to seek justice in an international forum if their rights – including adequate housing, food, water, sanitation, health, work, social security and education – are violated and their government fails to ensure access to an effective remedy at the national level.   “Access to justice is essential for victims of all human rights violations and the Optional Protocol provides a key instrument to accomplish this,” said the Coalition spokesperson. We congratulate the first ten countries that have ratified the Optional Protocol on proving their commitment to the realization of all human rights. We call on all other states to follow this positive example.   For human rights to be truly achieved and a life in dignity to be a reality for all, everyone whose human rights are violated must have an effective remedy.   The Optional Protocol establishes a vital tool for people, in particular for those living in poverty, to seek realization of all human rights and to hold their government accountable for ESC rights violations.   Furthermore, the Optional Protocol offers the opportunity to increase the State´s understanding of their obligations with regard to economic and social rights and will contribute to the adoption of positive measures.   The Optional Protocol is intended to complement and not replace national mechanisms, which remain the key space for victims to seek justice. However, the decisions made under this new mechanism are likely to influence national and regional courts around the world.   Therefore, governments ratifying the Optional Protocol should ensure that there are national mechanisms in place, such as courts and human rights commissions with the mandate and capacity to enforce economic, social and cultural rights.   http://www.escr-net.org/ http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/POL34/001/2014/en/b31f06dd-3c14-4422-b249-0ac799f018af/pol340012014en.pdf Visit the related web page
	Patent law must recognise human genes are no invention by ACLU, Democracy Now & agencies   Feb 2013   Patent law must recognise human genes are no invention, by Luigi Palombi.   Every human has the right to use whatever exists in nature. It is a mistake to consider that an isolated human gene is something different, writes Luigi Polombi.   Last week"s ruling by Justice John Nicholas of the Federal Court of Australia in the Cancer Voices v Myriad Genetics case is both contradictory and absurd.   In his conclusion, the Justice stated that "naturally occurring DNA and RNA as they exist inside the cells of the human body cannot be the subject of a valid patent". But despite this acknowledgement, Justice Nicholas held that certain genetic mutations in the human gene BRCA 1 - associated with breast and ovarian cancers - are patentable subject matter.   It is a mistake to think of this case as being about the legality of a statutory monopoly. It is about human dignity. It is about equity. It is about justice. Justice Nicholas"s decision ignores human dignity, lacks equity and denies justice to every Australian.   According to his decision a human gene, or any part of it, that has been removed from the human body is an invention. It does not matter that the genetic material is otherwise identical to that found in the body. The decision asserts that the very act of "isolation" transforms it from a product of nature into an invention even though that material by itself is not the product of those who claim to have invented it. And while the holder of the patent does not own the genetic materials, they have the right - for 20 years - to exclude every other Australian from using them.   Of course, no-one, not even Justice Nicholas, suggests that a patent holder can extract an economic rent for the use of the genetic material inside our own bodies. But the moment they are removed from the human body, the patent holder is entitled as a matter of law to the exclusive right to their exploitation. It is akin to giving someone the private right to impose a tax on human genes.   In 1623 the British parliament passed a law that banned all monopolies because it was understood that monopolies are counterproductive. However, it made certain exceptions. One exception was in regard to a patent granted in return for an invention. The justification was that the value of an invention to society was greater than the costs imposed on it during the 14 years the inventor had the exclusive right to exploit the invention. The disclosure of an invention and how to make it was considered to be a public good meriting a societal reward.   It follows from this that when there is no invention, there is no public good against which the costs imposed on society by the patent can be offset. In other words, a patent without an invention is counterproductive. It means the patent holder has the right to extract a private tax on every Australian over something the holder never invented in the first place.   Every human has the right to use whatever exists in nature. As the US Supreme Court has held:...manifestations of ... nature, [are] free to all men and reserved exclusively to none.   Justice Nicholas"s decision wholeheartedly embraces this statement, but he gives it short shrift by concluding that an isolated human gene is something different.   In an amicus curiae (friend of the court) brief filed before the US Supreme Court last month the US government argues that:...isolated but otherwise unmodified DNA is not patent-eligible.   Recognising the human right to equity and justice the brief states:   The public"s ability to study and use native DNA would be unduly compromised if changes caused by the extraction of naturally-occurring substances from their native environments were sufficient to trigger patent-eligibility. And while the process of isolating DNA entails physical changes, those changes do not significantly alter the structure or function of the relevant DNA segments.   Dr James Watson, the co-discoverer of the double-helical structure of the human genome who shared the Nobel prize for this discovery, filed an amicus brief critical of the kind of reasoning employed by Justice Nicholas.   He maintains that this legal reasoning misses the "fundamentally unique nature of the human gene" which, he says, lies in its ability to "store the information necessary to create and propagate human life".   Closer to home Professor Ian Frazer has also criticised the same legal semantics. In his opinion:...there is no more invention in isolating and characterising isolated biological materials that exist in our human bodies ... than in collecting and arranging a set of postage stamps.   Professor Frazer has called on the Australian Parliament to amend Australian patent law to "exclude gene sequences from the definition of patentable subject matter".   It would seem, in light of the decision of Justice Nicholas, that our politicians must now answer his call. And it is critical that they do so.   According to Justice Nicholas whatever the US Supreme Court decides in the corresponding proceedings will make no difference to Australian patent law. That may be so, but it may make a difference to the dignity and rights of the Australian people.   * Luigi Palombi is a Australian patent law expert.   July 2012   Human DNA occurs in nature. It cannot belong to a particular company. (ACLU, Democracy Now)   A company can"t own genes, said groups fighting to release patents held by Myriad Genetics Inc. at a U.S. appeals court Friday.   The Salt Lake City-based Myriad has patents on two genes associated with hereditary breast and ovarian cancer creating a monopoly on genetic tests for them, which prevents women from being able to get tests from other laboratories or even second opinions and provides insured profits for Myriad.   “Patent law was never intended to interfere with the rights of scientists and doctors to conduct their research and exchange ideas freely,” said Chris Hansen, staff attorney with the ACLU Speech, Privacy and Technology Project. “Human DNA occurs in nature. It cannot belong to a particular company.”   "Understanding genetic risk for breast and ovarian cancer is crucial for many women facing life-changing medical decisions,” said Sandra Park, staff attorney with the ACLU Women’s Rights Project.   “Patients deserve access to the best quality care and research available, and that can’t happen when only one company controls access to the genes.”   Lisbeth Ceriani, a breast cancer survivor and plaintiff in the case, was forced to pay for Myriad’s $4,000 test. Though Ceriani had insurance, it wasn"t accepted by Myriad. “I had no other options available to me when I was seeking genetic testing for a potentially life threatening health issue,” said Ceriani. “No one corporation should be able to deny me the right to look at a piece of my body.”   Last year, the Federal Circuit ruled 2-1 in favor of Myriad, and today it faced the same panel of judges.   In a sign of a second possible pro-corporate ruling, Judge Kimberly Moore, who was one of the two judges ruling in favor of Myriad last year, said, "There"s a lot of money at stake here" and referenced industry expectations.   In an October 2011 interview with Democracy Now! (see link below), medical ethicist Harriet Washington explained the problem with what she calls the medical-industrial complex:   "A corporation owns the patent, and what does that mean? It means not only can it do whatever it wants with this gene, it can prevent other people from working with it.   In Paris, for example, a French researcher at the Curie Institute found that this particular test, the test of Myriad, actually missed a lot of breast cancers. But that finding could never have been made here in this country, because when other people try to work with these genes, Myriad sends a cease-and-desist letter and tells them, "We have the patent on this. You cannot work with it."   So, it’s clear that the research into breast cancer treatment is being stymied by this patent. And Myriad is concerned with, as you heard, collecting its $3,000 to $4,000 fees from each woman who gets a BRAC Analysis. I think it’s nothing short of criminal."   http://www.aclu.org/search/Genes%20and%20Patents?show_aff=1   http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2013/mar/07/can-they-patent-your-genes/   http://www.democracynow.org/2011/10/31/deadly_monopolies_medical_ethicist_harriet_washington
	View more stories