A/HRC/20/26 if necessary, be limited to uphold other rights. 64 The intellectual property regime is a temporary monopoly that “should be managed in accordance with a common responsibility to prevent the unacceptable prioritization of profit for some over benefit for all”.65 58. In its response to the questionnaire, WIPO stated that, “in order for the international patent system to continue to serve its fundamental purpose of encouraging innovation and promoting dissemination and transfer of technology, the right balance should be struck between the rights of technology holders and the rights of technology users for the benefit of society as a whole.” A number of exceptions and flexibilities in treaties, such as the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property and the International Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, may be used to ensure compatibility with, in particular, the right to science. A wide range of policy space given to States, “asymmetries”, allow “different standards of IP protection provided the principles and substantive provisions are fulfilled”. The TRIPS Agreement reduced this policy space although it, too, incorporates some “flexibilities”.66 59. These flexibilities are important tools to ensure respect for human rights; they need to be explored further and applied more consistently. The Special Rapporteur recalls, however, that “a number of developing countries, while attempting to implement TRIPS flexibilities to address public health concerns, have experienced pressures from developed countries and multinational pharmaceutical corporations”.67 Similar concerns have been expressed in other fields.68 She also notes that, in accordance with intellectual property treaties, States must establish “minimum standards of protection”, and that surpassing these may not always be compatible with human rights standards. Furthermore, it is pertinent to assess whether existing minimum standards accord with human rights standards. 60. The relationship between intellectual property regimes and human rights has been most comprehensively addressed in the context of health, 69 although it is now receiving more attention in the contexts of the right to food and of climate change. 61. The Special Rapporteur notes that new incentives have been proposed to ensure innovation and access to medicines at affordable costs, in particular for those living in extreme poverty. Importantly, the WTO Doha Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and public health explicitly recognizes that the TRIPS Agreement “can and should be interpreted and implemented in a manner supportive of WTO Members’ right to protect public health”, and reaffirmed the right to use the flexibilities included in the Agreement for this purpose. Generic competition has emerged as a most effective strategy, for example allowing a reduction of up to 99 per cent in the cost of drugs.70 Interesting case law is also developing on this issue. In 2008, for example, in India, the High Court of Delhi dismissed a case brought by a multinational pharmaceutical company claiming that the generic manufacturing of a lung cancer drug infringed on its patent rights. The ruling was based, in part, on the court finding that upholding the multinational’s patent rights would violate the right to life of those without access to its drugs. 62. Incentives can be provided through “patent pools” that enable several patent holders to license their patents to third parties. This increases access by reducing the time in which drugs become available, lowers drug costs by promoting collaboration rather than 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 16 E/C.12/GC/17, paras. 3-4. Venice Statement, para. 10. See also A/HRC/11/12. A/HRC/17/43, para. 47. See De Schutter (see footnote 19) and submission by CIEL. A/HRC/11/12. See A/HRC/11/12, para. 20.