A/HRC/31/45 30. Some States stressed that the right to health was key and had to be guaranteed for all without discrimination, including for drug users, and underlined that public health strategies, including harm-reduction programmes, had led to a reduction in HIV transmission. One State commented that it did not support harm reduction because it suggested that there was a safe way to use controlled drugs. One intergovernmental organization noted that more than 1.5 million people who injected drugs lived with HIV and called for the decriminalization of drug use in order to reach out to drug users and provide them with the necessary health services. Some non-governmental organizations noted that people who injected drugs had a much higher risk of contracting HIV and regretted that efforts did not focus on the protection of drug users and their access to health. 31. Some States noted that policies should focus on the rights of individuals and their access to treatment and social services. The importance of ensuring access to health services, including safe and affordable medicines, for drug users was also emphasized. One State indicated that an approach to drug policy based on public health should not lead to a more permissive approach to drug control. One State appealed for more focus on science and evidence in formulating approaches to drug policy, rather than using ideological or political arguments as the basis for debate. A number of States commented that it was important to remove barriers to gaining access to controlled medicines. C. Criminal justice issues 32. A number of States stressed that the death penalty should be abolished for drugrelated offences, while others emphasized that their goal was the universal abolition of the death penalty in all circumstances, including for drug users. One State, however, reiterated that the death penalty for drug-related offences was an effective deterrent in its commitment to adopt a zero-tolerance approach and that it respected the human rights of all, including drug abusers. One non-governmental organization voiced concern about the large number of executions for drug-related crimes in the Islamic Republic of Iran. 33. Access to justice, the importance of proportionality in sentencing and alternatives to imprisonment were highlighted by a number of States. One State said that, while drugs remained a threat to the well-being of individuals and security, addiction to drugs was an illness and should not be treated as a criminal offence. One non-governmental organization said that the enforcement of overly punitive laws for drug offences had not proven effective in curbing the production, trafficking and consumption of illicit substances. One nongovernmental organization regretted the expanded use of the military in combating drug trafficking in Mexico. D. Non-discrimination and specifically affected groups 34. A number of States emphasized that drug policies needed to be implemented in a non-discriminatory way. One State underlined that it was making great efforts to strengthen its drug policies, while at the same time taking into account the rights of indigenous peoples and their use of coca leaves. A number of non-governmental organizations stated that drug control policies could lead to harsh outcomes for women, children, indigenous peoples and human rights defenders, all of whom were particularly vulnerable. Other non-governmental organizations highlighted the vulnerability of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender persons to drug-related problems, indicating that they faced discrimination that led to lack of access to health services. 8