Mar 8 2013

The International Narcotics Control Board Strains its Limited Credibility

By Kasia Malinowska-Sempruch, director of the Open Society Global Drug Policy Program.


INCB_BLOGThe International Narcotics Control Board (INCB) issued its Annual Report this week. The INCB, a body of independent experts based at the UN, ostensibly issues the document to provide a yearly update on the functioning of the international drug control system. In practice, however, the reports are used as a mechanism to criticise states that deviate from repressive and supply-oriented international drug policies.

This year, the self-described ‘guardian’ of the international drug control treaties has many targets. The concerns of its members run from predictable (Denmark) to trifling (Bolivia). However, in the context of international drug control, this report is more odious than it might first appear. Its omissions are as striking as its statements. The words ‘harm reduction’ are mentioned only once and some of the worst excesses of drug policy are completely overlooked.

Ignoring Human Rights Standards:

In the field of human rights the Board’s comments and actions are so shockingly out of line with international norms that it calls into question its credibility – if not its competence. For example, during the INCB’s visit to Saudi Arabia, the government actually beheaded a man named Bashir Khamis Ahmad, for a drug offence. However, this did not receive any comment from the INCB at the time nor any mention in the annual report. One might forgive such an oversight in countries where executions are held in secret. But capital punishment is quite transparent in Saudi Arabia. Executions are widely reported in the local and even international media. In fact, the official government press agency announces them. Moreover, such killings are frequent. Bashir Khamis Ahmad was the second drug offender to be beheaded that month – the other being a man named Hayat Sayed Lal Sayed.

Saudi Arabia’s approach to drugs, meanwhile,  is not limited to beheadings but also includes flogging, a punishment widely condemned as torture, or at the very least, cruel inhuman or degrading. Harm Reduction International reported that in 2001, three people were sentenced to 1,500 lashes each for drug offences. Ignoring these human rights abuses, the Board praised Saudi Arabia and recognised the ‘commitment of the Government of Saudi Arabia to comply with its obligations under the three international drug control conventions to which it is a party and commends the country’s government agencies involved in drug control for their commitment and efforts in the fight against drug abuse and drug trafficking.’

This is not an isolated case. In 2003, the INCB commended Thailand after an extrajudicial killing spree in which 2,500 people were gunned down. At the time, the INCB remarked that the action had decreased amphetamine use in the country and commended the government for investigating the incidents, despite protests from human rights NGOs and even UN officials that the government was blocking all independent investigations.

The INCB’s indifference to international standards has long been visible. Last year, the Board wrote that it ‘welcomes the steps taken in Viet Nam to improve the treatment and rehabilitation of drug abusers’ and in the same paragraph ‘encourages the Government to reinforce and support existing facilities.’ Such encouragement came after the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Health raised serious human rights concerns about Viet Nam’s drug treatment and detention centres and after twelve UN agencies called on such centres to be shut down. Time and again, the INCB has simply turned a blind eye to international standards, human rights, science and even basic decency.

Bolivia and the Coca Leaf:

Despite overlooking the aforementioned violations of established international norms, it was an infinitesimal adjustment to Bolivia’s international drug control obligations that raised the Board’s ire. In mid-2011, Bolivia withdrew from the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs in order to reenter with a very minor reservation to the requirement that ‘coca leaf chewing must be abolished’. Bolivia argued this obligation was in direct conflict with the Universal Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which was adopted in 2007, that reflects a global commitment to respect cultural traditions and medicinal practices of all indigenous populations.

While the section of the annual report appears to have been written before Bolivia was re-admitted, the Board chose to criticize the action as undermining international law. It wrote Bolivia’s move was, ‘contrary to the fundamental object and spirit of the 1961 Convention.’ This was despite Bolivia following the procedures prescribed by the drug control treaties. Moreover, Bolivia’s reservation and reentry to the international agreement was accepted by the international community months ago. Only 15 of the 193 Member States of the UN General Assembly objected to Bolivia’s reentry.

Denmark and Harm Reduction:

Elsewhere in the annual report, evidence-based health services were once again criticised by the Board. The INCB singled out Denmark for introducing ‘drug consumption rooms’ – thereby augmenting its long and indefensible history of criticising interventions proven to reduce overdose and the transmission of blood borne viruses and bacterial infections like HIV. For example, In the past, members of the INCB have denounced methadone maintenance therapy as tantamount to illegal drug use – even though methadone is on the World Health Organization’s list of essential medicines.

As was documented in the recent LSE IDEAS report, ‘Governing the Global Drug Wars’, ‘These views are in direct conflict both with the unanimous Declaration of Commitment on HIV/AIDS of the UN General Assembly in 2001 and with position papers of WHO, UNAIDS and UNODC recommending opiate maintenance therapy as a central element of HIV prevention.’ As the LSE report stated, ‘The INCB’s unconstrained praise of repressive practices only fuels the strong temptation that countries face to use “drug war” approaches to justify measures that may be disproportionately harsh.’

Overhauling Oversight:

Amidst the INCB’s praise for some the world’s worst human rights offenders, it must be asked: at what point does approval amount to collusion? It is easy to dismiss the INCB’s report as the ramblings of a relatively obscure international body. After all, this toothless watchdog’s writings do not dictate national action. Rather, its opinions serve only as a justification or excuse for what governments are keen to do anyway.

But one need only look at the abhorrent practices this report excuses to understand why it is so disturbing. Harm Reduction International estimates there are as many as 1,000 people executed for drug offences every year and that there are hundreds of thousands of new (and entirely preventable) HIV and HCV infections through injecting drug use.

Arbitrary detention, denial of health services, unlawful executions for drugs are not isolated incidents. In many places they are widespread, and frequently enshrined in law. If the INCB’s only comments on these clear human rights violations are words of praise – then its credibility and competence are severely compromised.


Kasia Malinowska-Sempruch is director of the Open Society Global Drug Policy Program. She was director of the Open Society International Harm Reduction Development Program from 1999 to 2007. She also served on the World Health Organization’s Strategic and Technical Advisory Committee on HIV/AIDS. She is a doctoral candidate at Columbia University’s School of Public Health.


This entry was posted in Latin America, Middle East, United States. Bookmark the permalink.

12 Responses to The International Narcotics Control Board Strains its Limited Credibility

  1. Steve Rolles says:

    The INCB have even suggested needle and syringe programs are illegal in the past :In an 2002 Interview with Dr. Philip O. Emafo, then INCB President (in Update, UNODC Newsletter) siad: “[T]o promote drug use illicitly through the giving out of needles [..] would, to me, amount to inciting people to abuse drugs, which would be contrary to the provisions of the conventions.”

  2. Gart Valenc says:

    This is not the first time Argentina questions the veracity and reliability of the INCB data and analysis. Back in March 2012, Argentina did challenge INCB assertion according to which Argentina would be the largest consumer of cocaine in South America:

    I have no doubts that in order to overcome ignorance, prejudice and ideological agendas drugs data ought to be gathered, validated & published by independent, transparent bodies.

    Gart Valenc
    Twitter: @gartvalenc

  3. Gart Valenc says:

    Sorry, wrong blog!

    Gart Valenc
    Twitter: @gartvalenc

  4. Pingback: Us and Them III: After Anslinger | Better Giants

  5. Pingback: Perverse Incentives I: Beltway Bandits | Better Giants

  6. Pingback: Why UNDP must get up to date on drug use, the law and human rights | Inpud's International Diaries

  7. Khalid Mahmood Rajpar says:

    I am surprised on the passing of the Bill of legalizing marijuana bill.
    Isn’t it a license to kill the human beings? I am unable to understand the logic behind passing that bill indeed.
    In fact it is infringing the protection of human life and destroying the human society at large.
    world is following on the steps taken by the advanced countries and such countries are breaking the human existence through passing and supporting such dirty business i will say.

    Than what will be role of INCB which is an independent body of experts established by the United Nations to monitor countries’ compliance with international drug treaties.

    What would be the future of the countries those who are working on it to control the drugs and saving human lives?

    What will be the end result of the treaties under U.N.Conventions and Extradition Treaties throughout world for international cooperation and collaboration for curbing human enemy products and drugs various items.

    Who will be responsible on control the production, distribution, commerce and consumption of marijuana etc.?

    Consumers have to be over 18 and registered
    Marijuana to be sold at licensed pharmacies
    Sales are limited to 40g (1.4oz) per month
    Registered users can grow up to six plants at home isn’t it mockery of human life?

    The bill passed in Uruguay’s House of Representatives, is going to create a situation of ciaos in the world indeed I perceive, the role of INCB would be in “complete contravention” of the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs of 1961, which bans the sale of cannabis for non-medical use.

    it is pertinent to high light here that “might have serious consequences for the health and welfare of he population and for the prevention of cannabis abuse among the youth”.

    The bill was approved by 50 of the 96 MPs present in the House of Representatives following a fierce 13-hour debate in the capital, Montevideo.


    therefore law making authorities should rethink over such step taken by state government and save the globe and save the world please.

    Kgalid Mahmood Rajpar
    Advocate High Court of Pakistan
    Anti narcotics Practitioner

  8. Pingback: Perverse Incentives I: The Beltway Bandits | Better Giants

  9. Pingback: Ideology prevails in the International Narcotics Control Boards’ annual report | The Nowhere Man

  10. Pingback: Drug Policy: the unreasonable logic of the INCB - Shout Out UK

  11. Pingback: Refleksje po spotkaniu Commission on Narcotic Drugs |

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *