A/HRC/11/12 page 19 Thailand.60 One of the affected companies withdrew seven pending applications for registration of new medicines in Thailand, thus effectively withholding them from the Thai market.61 59. In 2008, noting the burden of cancer and the necessity for the Government health programme to provide access to cancer medicines, Thailand issued compulsory licences for three anti-cancer medicines.62 A global campaign to support the Thai compulsory licences led to several statements of support for the use of this TRIPS flexibility;63 however Thailand continues to face growing pressure in response to its use of compulsory licensing.64 60. Similarly, India faced pressure for its attempt to use safeguards. India, in 2005 included strict patentability criteria in its patent law to address the evergreening of patents.65 This provision was challenged by a pharmaceutical company in the Madras High court alleging it was a violation of TRIPS and of the constitutional equality provision. The amendment was upheld, among other grounds as a fulfilment of the right to health obligations of the Government.66 The Indian case also garnered significant global international support for the use of public health safeguards by developing countries in their patent laws.67 60 See footnote 41 above. In a letter dated 10 July 2007 to the Minister of Commerce of Thailand, the EU Trade Commissioner claimed that, “neither the TRIPS Agreement nor the Doha Declaration appear to justify a systematic policy of applying compulsory licenses wherever medicines exceed certain prices”. 61 WHO Access to Medicines, Briefing Note - Country Experiences in Implementing TRIPS Safeguards, February 2008. 62 A fourth drug, imatinib, for treating leukaemia and other cancers was also to have been subjected to a compulsory licence, but the licence was not implemented after it was given for free to a Thai public health programme. 63 Asia Pacific Network of People Living with HIV/AIDS (APN+), Our Health, Our Rights, (2008), p. 73. 64 2008 PhRMA Submission to USTR for the Special 301 Report, excerpt on Thailand. 65 The Patents (Amendment) Act 2005, section 3 (d). 66 Novartis AG v. Union of India, (2007) 4 MLJ 1153. 67 See footnote 63 above, p. 30.