A/HRC/17/43 companies and the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). Finally, he pointed out that access to medicines derived not only from article 12 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, but also from article 15.1.b., which implied that everyone had the right to enjoy the benefits of scientific progress and its applications. 10. Following this presentation, Chandrashekhar Dasgupta, member of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, mentioned the obligation of States, including through international assistance, to achieve the full realization of the rights in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, including the adoption of legislative measures to that effect. This obligation stemmed from articles 2.1 and 12 of the Covenant, as elaborated in general comments Nos. 3 and 14, in which the Committee emphasized States parties’ important role in international cooperation. Mr. Dasgupta also cautioned about the existing gap in access to medicines between developed and developing countries, which was both politically and socially unacceptable. 11. Mr. Dasgupta reiterated that States parties should ensure that the right to health, including access to medicines, is given due attention in international agreements, as detailed in general comment No. 14, and that States parties should ensure that laws and practices were consistent with the provisions of the Covenant. He shared the assessment of the Special Rapporteur regarding generic medicines, and concluded that TRIPS-plus standards that denied countries the flexibilities to which they are were otherwise entitled were unacceptable if they had an adverse impact on access to medicines. 12. Richard Laing from the World Health Organization (WHO) contributed to the discussion by stressing the importance of measuring access to medicines as a very clear and relatively robust way of measuring a Government’s commitment to fulfilling the right to health. He noted, for instance, that the availability of generics in the public health sector was much lower (30 to 40 per cent) than the availability of generics in the private sector (60 per cent). As a result, many patients living in poverty and used public facilities had limited access to medicines. He underlined the fact, however, that contrary to popular opinion, Governments were performing very well, as in most countries, public sector procurement obtained medicines at very reasonable international prices. This was not the case in the private sector, where prices were 10 to 20 times higher and driven by taxes, markups and other determining factors. Mr. Laing pointed out that, for many chronic diseases, such as asthma and diabetes, people were asked to spend up to 30 per cent of wages just to obtain medicines needed daily. Chronic disease often led to unsustainable levels of expenditure, and situations in which people had to choose between buying food or medicine. 13. Access to medicines was also affected by the use of retrogressive measures used in times of economic recession, when Governments often increased taxes on medicines, decrease co-payment and access to health insurance and cut subsidies, which consequently impeded access to medicines. 14. The creation of a new website with data on access to medicines-related case law was one of the most recent awareness-raising activities of WHO. Many examples from Latin America proved that laws could be used to improve access to medicines. In that context, WHO has also analysed constitutions worldwide and found that 135 of 186 national constitutions included provisions relating to health or the right to health. Of these, 95 mentioned the right to access to health facilities, goods and services, while only 4 recognized access to essential medicines as a fundamental right (Mexico, Peru, the Philippines and the Syrian Arab Republic). 15. Mr. Laing also noted the responsibility of multinational and national generic companies for increases in the price of medicines. In that context, WHO recalled the access GE.11-11842 5