Court Session Overview:
On January 8, 2025, the appellate judicial board of the Andijan Regional Court on criminal cases convened in a closed session to review the case of a convicted individual under Article 113, Part 4 of the Criminal Code of Uzbekistan. The case involved a conviction related to knowingly placing another person at risk of HIV infection.
Initial Conviction:
The Andijan City Criminal Court, on November 22, 2024, sentenced the convicted individual to three years of imprisonment in a general colony. This judgment was based on evidence that the accused, despite being aware of their HIV-positive status since 2018, engaged in unprotected sexual activity without informing their partner, thereby exposing them to the risk of HIV infection. The crime was categorized under Part 4 of Article 113 of the Criminal Code, which addresses the deliberate endangerment of others in the context of HIV/AIDS.
Appeal and Arguments Presented:
The appeal submitted by the defense cited mitigating circumstances, requesting a non-custodial sentence. Key arguments included:
- The accused’s confession and expressed remorse for their actions.
- Personal circumstances, including being the sole caregiver for three minor children and elderly parents.
- Health concerns and the assertion that imprisonment would further strain familial responsibilities.
- A request from the victim, now reconciled with the accused, who expressed no objections to a non-custodial sentence.
The victim testified that the couple had resolved their disputes, maintained a legal marriage, and had a child together. She also emphasized the absence of another family breadwinner, urging leniency for the sake of their children.
Appellate Court Decision:
After reviewing the appeal, the appellate court upheld the initial verdict, maintaining the three-year imprisonment sentence. The court found:
- The evidence presented, including the victim’s testimony, confrontation protocols, and prior warnings, substantiated the accused’s guilt.
- The original court had appropriately balanced principles of justice and humanity in determining the sentence, taking into account the nature and gravity of the offense and societal implications.
- While the arguments for leniency were noted, the appellate court emphasized the need to uphold public health laws and deter similar conduct.
The court concluded that the initial judgment was legally sound, equitable, and aligned with the standards established under Uzbek law, including guidance from the Supreme Court’s resolution on sentencing practices.
Outcome:
The appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence of three years’ imprisonment in a general colony remained in force.
