A/HRC/26/19 towards a new intellectual property regime that was in conformity with human rights norms and standards. 30. Mr. Abbott expressed the view that it was self-evident that governments were under an international human rights legal obligation to make use of intellectual property flexibilities in appropriate circumstances. The source of that obligation might be found in a number of human rights, and more than one such right might apply in a given situation. A generalized norm relating to the obligation to use intellectual property flexibilities might be that there was an obligation to prevent the exercise of an intellectual property-based exclusive right to control a technology or an expression when there was a substantial risk to human life or health, and such risk was not adequately addressed by existing governmental resources. The obligation could also extend to situations where exclusive control of the technology or the expression was substantially impairing human development, including educational development, and the holder of the right had not offered or provided a satisfactory solution. In relation to patents, for instance, a broad range of intellectual property flexibilities was available, including discretion in the framing of the criteria for patenting, the option for parallel importation, limited exceptions to patent rights and compulsory licensing and government use. The Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) left substantial room for government discretion. However, such discretion was not unlimited, even though the boundaries were often unclear. 31. Many interventions focused on the use of TRIPS flexibilities, with one participant noting that, in recent years, the debate had centred on the interests of powerful States as opposed to those of less powerful States, the latter being more constrained in their ability to resort to compulsory licensing in appropriate circumstances. Several participants were of the view that the international patent system was fundamentally flawed as it promoted the financial interests of the powerful at the expense of the poor. They asserted that that positioning of trade and commercial interests above human rights and the public welfare should be revisited. One participant posed the question whether, by focusing on TRIPS flexibilities, rather than the underlying conflict between the intellectual property system and human rights norms, a concession was being made to the intellectual property regime by default. Another participant submitted that failing to consistently frame arguments for the revision of the intellectual property regime in human rights terms was possibly hindering efforts to bring human rights into the discussion. 32. Some participants noted that the patent system adversely affected the rights of smallscale farmers to retain and sell seeds, in response to which one participant referred to the flexibility available within the intellectual property regime which could permit exceptions to allow seed retention for replanting purposes. A number of other issues were raised during the discussion, including the extent to which States had positive obligations to protect access to scientific progress, the efficacy of using the patent system as the primary means of technology transfer, the extent to which publicly funded research could and should be privatized, and ownership of publicly funded inventions. F. Access to information, technology and knowledge 33. Iryna Kuchma (Electronic Information for Libraries), Roger Pfister (Swiss Academy of Sciences/International Council for Science Committee on Freedom and Responsibility in the Conduct of Science) and Hans Morten Haugen (Diakonhjemmet University College) made presentations. The panel was moderated by Christian Courtis. 34. Ms. Kuchma emphasized that access to information and knowledge was crucial to the realization of “the right to science” and that open access repositories facilitated technology-enabled networking and collaboration, which offered fresh avenues for 10