A/63/263 involved in the initiative were unwilling to proceed. Reluctantly, the Special Rapporteur and Mrs. Robinson decided that buy-in from only two companies was insufficient for what was designed to be a collaborative initiative engaging a range of major pharmaceutical companies. It was agreed that there was no choice, unfortunately, other than to put the proposal aside. 33. The regrettable refusal of some pharmaceutical companies to engage in this collaborative project did not diminish the need to pursue the central objective. Given that some States allege that the practices of some pharmaceutical companies are obstacles to access to medicines, the urgent need remained for greater clarity regarding the human rights responsibilities of pharmaceutical companies in relation to access to medicines. 34. Of course, the long-term goal is the development of internationally recognized human rights guidelines for both States and pharmaceutical companies in relation to access to medicines. However, there is greater clarity about the human rights responsibilities of States than there is about the responsibilities of pharmaceutical companies regarding access to medicines. As already observed, several reports of the Special Rapporteur explore the responsibilities of States regarding access to medicines. Indeed, one report applies the right-to-health analytical framework and sets out in detail the numerous human rights responsibilities of States in relation to access to medicines (A/61/338). There is no comparable human rights guidance for pharmaceutical companies in relation to access to medicines. In these circumstances, the Special Rapporteur’s priority focus was on human rights guidelines for pharmaceutical companies in relation to access to medicines. 35. Thus, as signalled in his report to the General Assembly (ibid.), the Special Rapporteur embarked on a process of preparing, for consultation, draft human rights guidelines for pharmaceutical companies in relation to access to medicines. That process drew heavily upon the extensive discussions with pharmaceutical companies and others that had taken place between 2003 and 2006. There were additional consultations, too. In 2007, for example, the University of Toronto organized a multi-stakeholder workshop, attended by pharmaceutical companies. 36. That process led to the publication of draft guidelines in September 2007. The draft was available for public comment until 31 December 2007; to allow as much consultation as possible, the deadline was postponed until 31 March and again until 15 May 2008. To facilitate consultation, the draft was placed on the websites of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, as well as the Human Rights Centre, University of Essex. The Special Rapporteur noticed that the draft was also posted on numerous other websites, too. 37. Since September 2007, the Special Rapporteur actively sought comments on the draft. In October, the Government of Brazil held an open consultation, attended by States, at United Nations Headquarters in New York. There were two consultations with a number of major institutional investors in New York and in London. The draft was discussed with the World Health Organization and, on two occasions, with the International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers and Associations. Other non-governmental organizations were also consulted. 38. Unfortunately, when the Special Rapporteur approached some pharmaceutical companies to meet and discuss the draft, all declined, with the exception of NovoNordisk. Although the Special Rapporteur’s mission in June 2008 to 08-45647 9