A/63/263 others. More recently, the Special Rapporteur has benefited from the reports of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises. 26. During these numerous discussions, the human rights duties of States in relation to access to medicines were reasonably clear, and these duties are now explored, in considerable detail, in the Special Rapporteur’s various reports (see A/61/338). However, it became apparent during these discussions that the nature and scope of pharmaceutical companies’ human rights responsibilities in relation to access to medicines were not clear. The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, for example, confirms that the private business sector has responsibilities regarding the realization of the right to the highest attainable standard of health, but it has not taken further steps to specify these responsibilities. 5 While the Committee’s general statement of principle is very important, it provides no practical guidance about the human rights responsibilities of pharmaceutical companies in relation to access to medicines. 27. It became imperative, therefore, to address this situation. How can pharmaceutical companies sensibly be asked to respect their human rights responsibilities in relation to access to medicines without much more specific guidance, as well as the identification of good practices? How can they be monitored, and held to account, if their human rights responsibilities in relation to access to medicines are unclear? 28. In an effort to shape a collaborative approach aimed at addressing these questions, a series of substantive meetings with a number of major pharmaceutical companies, and civil society groups, was organized by the Special Rapporteur and Mary Robinson, President of Realizing Rights: The Ethical Globalization Initiative and former High Commissioner for Human Rights. The result of these discussions was a two-phase proposal suggesting a way forward. This proposal was discussed at length with the companies involved and revised to accommodate a number of their concerns. 29. First, it was suggested that a small group of human rights experts and representatives from pharmaceutical companies work together to identify as much common ground as possible, as well as good faith disagreements, in relation to pharmaceutical companies’ human rights responsibilities and access to medicines. It was proposed that this process would take two years and would generate an important, useful report that clarified what can properly be asked of pharmaceutical companies in relation to access to medicines and human rights. 30. The second part of the proposal outlined a process through which a small group of experts would then be appointed, by consensus among those participating in the initiative, to use this report to evaluate the policies and practices of certain pharmaceutical companies. These evaluations would be made public. This second phase would last for an initial period of three years. 31. The hallmark of this two-phase, five-year proposal was constructive cooperation and collaboration with a number of major pharmaceutical companies. 32. To their credit, two companies, Novartis and NovoNordisk, were willing to proceed with the proposal. Unfortunately, however, the majority of companies __________________ 5 8 See E/C.12/2000/4, general comment 14, para. 42. 08-45647