A/70/279 Rights in the Area of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights of 1988 (The Protocol of San Salvador). 31. In contrast, other commentators believe that the right to protection of the moral and material interests of authors extends to inventors and, therefore, that the human right to protection of authorship requires protection of the interests of individuals and communities who contribute to technological innovation as one form of human creativity. 11 32. The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights considers that the term “author” includes a “creator” of scientific innovations ( E/C.12/GC/17, paras. 7 and 9). This expansive reading, however, has been set within specific parameters and safeguards, which deserve to be restated. Article 15, paragraph 1(c) of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights does not recognize a human right to protection of intellectual property along the lines set out by intellectual property treaties. The equation of intellectual property regimes with the human right to protection of the moral and material interests of authors is false and misleading. Whereas the human right to benefit from th e protection of the moral and material interests resulting from one’s scientific, literary and artistic productions safeguards the personal link between authors and their creations and between peoples, communities or other groups and their collective cultu ral heritage, as well as their basic material interests, which are necessary to enable authors to enjoy an adequate standard of living, intellectual property regimes primarily protect business and corporate interests and investments. In addition, contrary to intellectual property rights, human rights are inalienable. The entitlements of legal entities under the intellectual property treaties, because of their different nature, are not protected at the level of human rights (E/C.12/GC/17, paras. 2, 3 and 7). 33. The Special Rapporteur acknowledges that the human right to property has sometimes been used as a basis for patent protection, in particular within th e European human rights system. 12 The provisions on the right to property oblige States to comply with the patent rules that have been legally adopted, but do not mandate any particular approach to the design of patent laws and policy; neither do they provide guidelines regarding the form that the protection of intellectual property should take. 1 Additionally, the right to property is subject to very far -reaching government power to regulate its use in line with its social function. Under the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights, the rejection of a particular patent application or the issuance of a compulsory license in the interests of public health might be viewed as an interference with the right to property, but is highly unlikely to be viewed as a violation, unless done in an arbitrary or capricious way. 13 __________________ 11 12 13 10/26 See Estelle Derclaye, “Intellectual property rights and human rights: coinciding and cooperating”, in Intellectual Property and Human Rights, Paul L. C. Torremans, ed. (Alphen aan den Rijn, The Netherlands, Kluwer Law International, 2008). See Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, article 17 (2); article 1 of the first Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. See Ânhueser-Busch Inc. v. Portugal, Application No. 73049/01, 44 European Court of Human Rights, Report 42 (holding that refusal to register a trademark “amounts to interference with the applicant company’s right of property” but declining to find that the right was violated); and Smith Kline and French Laboratories Limited. v. The Netherlands, Application No. 12633/87 of the European Court of Human Rights, Decisions and Reports 66 of Octo ber 1990 (holding that national issuance of a compulsory license “constituted a control of the use of property” and upholding the compulsory license as justifiable. 15-12543