Implementation of TRIPS Agreement and DR-CAFTA in the National

Legislation of Six Countries: Consequences for Access to Medicines

Reducing harm caused by monopoly

rights or increasing it?

The cases of Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua, Dominican Republic and Costa Rica (in process)

Main Finding:Not making use of opportunities for interpretationOn the contrary, these national laws contain excessive restrictions for access policy as:

Unnecessary limitations for applying the safeguards established in the TRIPS Agreement and affirmed in the Doha Declaration, especially for issuing compulsory licences – the only remaining means to restore competition

Lack of any solutions to by-pass the CAFTA provision that obliges to reject the market approval of generics relying on previously submitted test data when that product is on patent – e.g. an option could be to determine that a compulsory licence involves the suspension of this exclusivity

Main Conclusion:Civil Society and Social Movements need to look carefully at these laws and advocate for changes in wording and implementation

Using all possibilities for positive interpretation of international/regional trade agreements in order to give priority to the right to health over profit

Urging to establish a competent decision body for determining the appropriate measures in order to protect access to medicines against exclusive rights

Building international alliances which are capable to promote evaluations and modifications of the harmful provisions of TRIPS Agreement & DR-CAFTA

Should we formulate a complementary MDG:“to halt and begin to reverse the spread of monopoly rights on vital knowledge”

El Salvador Honduras Guatemala Dominican Republic

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

To get them or not to get them

Cost of ART using Generics compared to cost buying (mainly) Originator Drugs

AZT+XTC +EFV

AZT+XTC +NVP

TDF+XTC+EFV

TDF+XTC+NVP

Originator ARVS

Generic ARVs

Source: WHO price reporting mechanism, own calculations