A/HRC/4/28 page 26 45 CCT 8/02, full judgment available at http://www.law-lib.utoronto.ca/diana/ TAC_case_study/MinisterofhealthvTACconst.court.pdf. 46 1998 (1) SA 765 (CC), full judgement available at http://www.law-lib.utoronto.ca/ diana/TAC_case_study/Soobramoney.pdf. 47 In accordance with section 27 (3) of the South African Constitution, 1996. 48 1996 SCJ 25, p. 29. 49 CESCR, general comment No. 3, para. 2, and general comment No. 14, para. 30. 50 CESCR, general comment No. 14, para 45; Poverty Statement adopted by the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights on 10 May 2001, E/C.12/2001/10; A. Chapman and S. Russell (eds), Core Obligations: Building a Framework for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Intersentia, 2002. 51 CESCR, general comment No. 14, para. 12. 52 Case No. 31.777/96 (1998), For a further discussion of the case see Abramovich “Argentina: The Right to Medicines” in Litigating Economic, Social and Cultural Rights: Achievements, Challenges and Strategies (COHRE 2003). 53 Subject to the confidentiality of personal health data. 54 CCT 8/02, full judgement available at http://www.law-lib.utoronto.ca/diana/TAC_case_study/ MinisterofhealthvTACconst.court.pdf. 55 AIDS Access Foundation v. Bristol-Myers Squibb is another case on economic access. The AIDS Access Foundation, and two patients living with AIDS, alleged that Bristol-Myers Squibb and the Thai Department of Intellectual Property had “conspired to intentionally delete” the dose restriction in a patent application for didanosine. They argued that this could have the effect of restricting access to this particular HIV treatment. In its judgement, the Thai Central Intellectual Property and International Trade Court ruled that, because pharmaceutical patents may lead to high prices that limit access to medicines, patients may challenge their legality. The Court asserted the primacy of human life in trade agreements, as recognized internationally by the Doha Declaration on Trade-related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) and Public Health. The Court held that the TRIPS agreement must be: “interpreted and implemented so as to promote the rights of members to protect public health, especially the promotion and support of access to medicines”. The Court also held that “lack of access to medicines due to high prices prejudices the human rights of patients to proper medical treatment”. Tor Por 34/2544, full judgement available at http://www.cptech.org/ip/health/c/thailand/; see also www.msf.org. 56 [1997] 3 S.C.R. 624, full judgement available at http://www.canlii.org/ca/cas/ scc/1997/1997scc89.html.