Page:Special 301 Report 2001.pdf/24

 have been adopted, there have been no known convictions under the new law. Moreover, it is unclear whether the government has ex officio authority to commence criminal prosecution against copyright infringement.

 Azerbaijan has yet to fulfill its intellectual property commitments under the 1995 U.S.-Azerbaijan Trade Agreement. Azerbaijan is not yet a party to the Geneva Phonograms Convention, as required by the bilateral trade agreement, does not clearly provide protection for pre-existing works or sound recording, and does not clearly provide national treatment for sound recordings under its copyright law. In addition, there is weak enforcement of intellectual property rights in Azerbaijan. New criminal penalties for intellectual property rights violations have been adopted. However, the intellectual property rights provisions under the Criminal Code are weak and are limited to copyright and patent violations, completely excluding neighboring rights violations. In addition, the Customs Code does not provide the proper authority to seize infringing products at the border as required by the TRIPS Agreement.

 Belarus has several remaining steps to take to fulfill its intellectual property commitments under the 1993 U.S.-Belarus Trade Agreement. Like Armenia and Azerbaijan, Belarus is not yet a party to the Geneva Phonograms Convention, and thus does not provide protection for U.S. and other foreign sound recordings. It also does not clearly provide protection for pre-existing works or sound recordings. In addition, there is weak enforcement of intellectual property rights in Belarus and piracy levels remain extremely high. Belarus has amended its Criminal Code in order to provide higher penalties for intellectual property rights violations, but the Criminal Code still does not contain the proper authority for relevant government agencies to initiate criminal cases concerning copyright infringement on their own initiative.

 Bolivia has made marginal progress over the past year in its protection of intellectual property rights. However, Bolivia appears to remain non-compliant both in terms of its legal requirements and enforcement capabilities. Although Bolivia has made some progress with institutional reforms in the National Intellectual Property Service (SENAPI), enforcement of intellectual property rights remains weak and, as a result, the levels of copyright piracy continue to be among the highest in Latin America. The Government of Bolivia submitted a comprehensive intellectual property rights reform law to Congress in February 2001, but a preliminary overview of the proposed legislation has revealed some flaws that suggests that it might not be TRIPS compliant. Enforcement of existing laws to protect patented pharmaceutical products in Bolivia is also inadequate. Although the Andean Community Decision 486 has brought the country closer to TRIPS compliance, the Decision fails to protect data confidentiality adequately and to provide for second-use patents. Finally, the use of pirated software is still widespread among Bolivian Government institutions.

 While we were pleased to note that during 2000, the Government of Brazil processed a good number of patent applications, including some pipeline applications, more needs to be done to