255. Article I setting out general obligations for the Parties was considered superfluous as it did not add to the specific obligations contained in each particular article. Its deletion was therefore suggested.
256. As regards the functions entrusted to the Commission on Narcotic Drugs by Article II, it was suggested that in accordance with the wording used in article 8 of the Single Convention, the article should state that the Commission "is authorized" to consider all matters pertaining to the aims of the convention.
257. The reporting procedure introduced in Article III was commented upon by several speakers. Regarding the periodicity of the reports, it was stressed that annual reports would impose an excessive burden on Covernments as well as on international organizations concerned; it would be preferable to phase out their submission in a flexible manner. As to their content, it was proposed that in addition to laws and regulations, they could usefully include the text of bilateral agreements or arrangements and refer not only to significant cases of international traffic and seizure, but also to instances of controlled delivery, mutual legal assistance and other relevant elements. outcome of judicial proceedings carried out under the provisions of the convention could also be of interest.
The
258. It was suggested that in view of its content, a more appropriate title for Article IV would be "National Co-ordination Agencies”. As regards paragraph (e) concerning the transmission of legal papers, it was felt that it should be incorporated in article 5. The substance of paragraph (e) could also with advantage be transferred elsewhere in the convention.
259.
On the question of what body should be referred to under Article V, the view was expressed by several representatives that it would not be desirable to establish a new committee for the purpose. The Commission on Narcotic Drugs and the International Narcotics Control Board which had efficiently discharged their functions under the existing Conventions, would be able to perform the tasks contemplated in Article V. The opinion was expressed that a committee of the Commission, as suggested in the Secretariat's draft, composed of experts serving in their personal capacity could, however, play a useful role as the first level of control which would transmit its findings to the competent policy-making organ.
260. During the preliminary exchange of views on final clauses, several representatives expressed their preferences for either variants proposed in the working document, or for a combination of both.
261. Several representatives indicated that variant B of Article I, particularly the formulation: "open for signature by all States", was simpler, more succinct and corresponded to the current practice in the law of treaties. A reservation was expressed concerning the final clauses in relation to the position of the European Communities and their Member States under the convention.
262. With regard to Article III, concerning territorial application, some representatives were of the view that variant A was outdated and that a more suitable formulation was required.