Criticism of the WTO has been made because of its perceived complacency in managing a change that would affect the lives of millions of people; But they finally arrived on 30 August 2003 with a consensus on how to improve the system of compulsory licences (12). Under the agreement, all least developed countries2 that are WTO members are exempt from the requirement to produce patented medicines under compulsory licence. In addition, countries that are not covered by the definition of the least developed country may issue a compulsory licence (if the drug is patented on its territory) for the supply of a developing country when that country`s health situation falls under certain criteria: although these provisions have been included in the TRIPS agreement since their inception, nations have never interpreted the provisions of the agreement in any way. compatible with public health promotion. Some nations subject to the TRIPS agreement would pass legislation that maximizes the protection of intellectual property rights, but ignores public health crises affecting development areas. At the request of the influential pharmaceutical lobby, developed countries would threaten sanctions against countries that attempted to use parallel imports or compulsory licences. For example, in 1997, the United States notoriously threatened trade sanctions against South Africa if it did not cancel a section of the Medicines and Related Substances Control Amendment Act authorizing compulsory licensing and parallel imports when it complied with TRIPS (3, 8). – The ON TRIPS agreement will not be repealed in the near future and will continue to shape international intellectual property law7.7 Parallel imports allow a developing country to use the common practice of applying different drug prices in different countries. For example, if a package of nevirapine, a patented drug, is sold for $250.00 in France and $275.00 in South Africa, a South African company (or the government itself) can import the drug from France and sell it at a lower price without the permission of the South African patent holder. Parallel imports effectively allow countries to buy patented medicines at the lowest overall price. The parallel import right under the TRIPS agreement is based on a fundamental legal principle called “exhaustion” of intellectual property rights, which sets the date on which a patent holder no longer has exclusive rights in the resale of his or her product (5). Article 6 of the agreement stipulates that Member States can independently decide when the exclusive rights of patent holders with respect to resale are denounced, but issues of exhaustion cannot form the basis of a WTO dispute for settlement. Article 6 of the ON TRIPS agreement allows Member States to import in parallel.
The third recommendation is to change the language of the TRIPS agreement so that Member States are required to transpose the compulsory licensing provisions into their national legislation. Article 31 of the TRIPS agreement sets out the conditions for the use of compulsory licences by Member States. It begins with the finding” “If a member`s right authorizes the use of the subject of the patent without the authorization of the patent holder” (6) with respect to compulsory licences. The language of the article clearly allows Member States to adopt national intellectual property legislation without any mandatory import provision, while complying with the TRIPS Agreement, the Doha Declaration and the 30 August 2003 decision. The concept of compulsory licensing is of little importance to public health unless the only nations that introduce it do not have the capacity to produce pharmaceuticals. While it is true that parallel imports are also classified as an option and not an obligation, it is not a serious problem, because for a country to benefit from parallel imports, it is sufficient to amend its own national legislation to allow it; it does not depend on the cooperation of other nations.