US: A decade after his expected release date, Nushawn Williams remains in state custody

Nushawn Williams Served Out His HIV-Related Sentence in 2010. Why Is He Still Not Free?

Nushawn Williams was four days from freedom when he received a letter in April 2010 informing him New York State officials were effectively reneging on the deal he had reached with the state 12 years earlier. Instead of walking out of Wende Correctional Facility upon satisfying the maximum time permitted by his plea agreement and re-starting his life at the age of 33, Williams remains in state custody more than 10 years after he expected to be released.

“I haven’t been home one day after age 19, not one time,” Williams, now 43, told TheBody in a telephone interview from Central New York Psychiatric Center, where he has been confined since 2014 under a rarely invoked New York law that allows extended detention after an inmate has completed their prison sentence.

There was no Article 10 of New York’s Mental Hygiene Law in 1999, when Williams accepted a prison sentence ranging from four to 12 years after having sex with dozens of women without disclosing he was HIV positive. One encounter was with a girl under the state’s legal age of consent, which marked Williams as a violent sexual offender. Article 10 permits the involuntary “civil confinement” of inmates deemed extraordinarily predatory. It was enacted in 2007, about a year after Williams became eligible for supervised release and began focusing on his life after prison.

“It wasn’t looking good for parole, so I started angling for my max [end of the maximum length of a prison sentence]: what kind of job I was going to do. I wanted to go to school for cybersecurity, go to ITT Tech, learn about computers,” said Williams, who would strategize with his wife during weekend visits every 45 days.

“We got to talk and actually plan,” Williams recalled of their private time together. “Her whole thing was me getting back my name in a positive manner, to show the world that people can change, people can go through a setback, bounce back, and change. And when I didn’t get to max out, that shattered everything.”

Patients or Prisoners?

Article 10 requires New York prison officials to notify the state attorney general’s Office of Mental Health (OMH) any time someone convicted of a sexual offense is nearing his or her release date. OHM staff preform a cursory review of each inmate’s history that clears most for release, but some cases are forwarded to a three-person review team that recommends whether a more extensive psychiatric analysis should take place.

It was such a panel that sent Williams a letter less than a week before his prison sentence was to end in 2010, notifying him he would be evaluated to determine whether he had a mental abnormality warranting extended detention. According to the most recent annual report on the Article 10 system from the attorney general’s office, inmates are notified they may face a new form of custody an average of less than two weeks prior to their release date.

Then–attorney general Andrew Cuomo, now governor of New York, wound up filing a court petition to transfer Williams from criminal to civil confinement, and eventually Williams found himself in the legal proceeding he thought he had avoided by pleading guilty.

“If I went to trial [after my initial arrest], this is what would’ve happened, I felt this is what it would’ve looked like,” Williams said. It took a Chautauqua County jury just over an hour to determine Williams had a mental abnormality, and a judge ordered him moved from prison to the mental health hospital in central New York, where he remains indefinitely.

“The [New York] supreme court has held [Article 10] does not violate double jeopardy, because the goal here is not punishment, it’s treatment,” said Jessica Botticelli, principal attorney at Mental Hygiene Legal Service in New York, who works with Article 10 defendants but has no direct involvement with Williams’ case. “For the clients going through this, it feels like additional punishment, but the courts see it as treatment,” Botticelli said. “If you want my opinion, it’s a crock of shit.”

While individuals confined under Article 10 are supposed to be considered patients instead of inmates, New York’s mental health facilities offer fewer liberties than in traditional prisons, said Catherine Hanssens, executive director of The Center for HIV Law and Policy, who has worked with Williams for several years.

“The restrictions on them are very similar to what I used to see when I was representing death row inmates in New Jersey: no confidentiality, rooms constantly searched for contraband, [Williams’] particular religious items destroyed or removed and disrespected,” said Hanssens, who recalled being denied permission to send Williams a book about the unwritten rules of social relationships because the text was inconsistent with his therapeutic plan.

“There is a limitation on reading materials that would not have at all been a problem for him when he was an actual prisoner,” Hanssens said. “When he was actually serving time on these offenses, he had conjugal visits. When he was actually serving time, he was a trustee, which is a position you earn.”

Officials at Central New York Psychiatric Center have refused visitation to Williams’ mother and sister because his sister once had a relationship with someone who is currently detained at the facility, Williams said.

“Where do they do that, deny your mother to come see you because of the actions of my sister? This is the type of place this place is,” said Williams, who noted he also had more due-process and appeal rights if he was accused of wrongdoing while incarcerated at Wende, a maximum-security prison.

“Here, you’re guilty without even having a hearing or any of that stuff,” Williams said. “[Staff] writes notes just to make sure when the attorney general gets [the inmate file] there’s something in there to make you look like you haven’t changed, to make you look like you are still facing the same activities that you was facing when you was 19 years old.

“I haven’t had a misbehavior report in this facility in almost four years, but they don’t write none of that inside your report,” Williams said. “They don’t write about the positive adjustments you’ve made, the help that you constantly give to individuals that can’t control themselves—they don’t put any of that in it.”

The absence of any type of confidentiality for Article 10 detainees belies the presumption that treatment is being administered, Hanssens said.

“Nobody there, including Nushawn, gets actual therapy,” she said. “If you agree that effective therapy requires some assurances of confidentiality, it’s not there. There is nothing that they say to anybody on staff that can’t and won’t be put in their records.”

During the period between their supposed prison release date and the time of their Article 10 hearing, inmates can choose whether to remain in their correctional facility or be transferred to an OMH hospital. Botticelli, whose organization advocates for Article 10 defendants, said she advises clients to remain in prison unless they absolutely need to leave.

“Once they are transferred to an OMH facility, everything that they do or don’t do is recorded in some way, and can be used against them at their Article 10 trial,” Botticelli said. “It’s a no-win situation for them.”

Less than 1% of sexual offenders are civilly committed under Article 10 in New York, which is one of 20 states with a law permitting confinement beyond an individual’s prison sentence; however, 83% of those who are referred for an Article 10 trial are convicted. The New York attorney general’s office did not respond to interview requests, but its 2019 report on Article 10 noted, “It is obvious that civil management is making a difference in helping to protect communities from dangerous sex offenders.”

“It’s Not for Me to Make It out of Here”

Article 10 detainees are entitled to a review of their case each year to determine if they can be released, but even at those hearings, it’s difficult to see them as anything other than inmates.

“It has been determined that unless the client can provide a medical reason why they should not be shackled in this manner, then they will be: handcuffed, [put in] ankle shackles, [a] waist chain connecting to the ankle shackles, handcuffs connected to the waist chain with the black box, which is like a padlock which makes it so they can’t move their wrists,” Botticelli said. “I don’t think [the department of corrections] shackles [prisoners] that way.”

A backlog of cases means it’s not uncommon for a patient to be waiting for one annual review by the time another rolls around, Botticelli said. All Article 10 hearings have been postponed by COVID-19 restrictions, and while a handful of New York prisoners were released due to the pandemic, none were Article 10 detainees, Botticelli said.

Williams has not had a single annual review of his case in the five years he’s been at Central New York Psychiatric Center, and he remembers the promises made by politicians at the time of his arrest that he would spend the rest of his life behind bars.

“It’s not for me to make it out of here,” Williams said. “It’s for me to die in this facility.”

His story—that of a young Black man from the streets of New York City being allegedly promiscuous with mostly white women in Jamestown, New York—made his case the most high-profile in the county’s history, according to the local newspaper that runs annual reassurances such as, “Nushawn to Remain in Civil Confinement” and “Williams Remains in Civil Confinement.”

Following his arrest, Williams was labeled, “A One-Man HIV Epidemic,” by a New York Times headline, while Newsweek called him, “The AIDS Predator.” Residual prejudice toward HIV-related offenses has colored the treatment Williams receives at the psychiatric center, while his media-alleged background as a teenage drug dealer, stick-up boy, and convicted child molester has prevented HIV/AIDS and LGBT groups from rallying to his cause, Hanssens said.

“He doesn’t fit the profile that a lot of our community likes to support,” said Hanssens, who doesn’t consider Williams paranoid for believing he will die in state custody. Williams was taken off his HIV medication for the first two years he was confined at the mental health facility, and resumed treatment only after attorneys with the governor’s office intervened.

“Part of his cynicism is based on what he has come to know,” Hanssens said. “The officials that operate [his facility] engage in half-truths and outright lies on multiple occasions, and yet their characterizations of what’s going on is far more likely to be believed.”

No Way Out?

Graduating from one of New York’s mental health facilities is nearly impossible, which is why almost all patients are released by a judge’s order, Botticelli said.

“There was a court case in one of the prior iterations of the treatment program. It was a four-phase program, and one of the courts found Phase Four didn’t exist,” said Botticelli, who noted the replacement program has a similar shortcoming.

Judges look favorably upon Article 10 patients developing a relapse prevention plan, but Botticelli recalls a doctor from Williams’ facility testifying in a separate case that she and other staff were explicitly prohibited from helping detainees develop such a plan.

“That is not something they do, that is not something they can edit or advise on, so clients have to come up with it themselves without much input from the people who are treating them,” Botticelli said. “I don’t like to sound cynical, but I feel like the program is designed so that our clients cannot complete it, cannot succeed in it, and cannot be released without the intervention of the court.”

There are no HIV-specific interventions at the facility in which Williams is confined, but he has tried to piece together a relapse prevention program consisting of group therapy and countless drug rehabilitation courses for marijuana, which he considers a trigger for his youthful abandon.

“I was naive, I was young, I was idiotic. I lived a reckless life,” he said. “For me, a lot of the stuff they have here—understanding tactics, understanding the things I’ve done in my past, how to respect the laws, how to put an effective plan into motion that you plan to stick by once released, how to hold down a job, how to file taxes, how to budget your money—those are things I feel I can grab onto.

“I see things differently now,” Williams added. “I didn’t know any of these things before going to prison. I was a teenager.”

HIV JUSTICE WORLDWIDE COVID-19 criminalisation statement now available in Arabic

Today, the HIV JUSTICE WORLDWIDE Steering Committee statement on lessons learned from HIV criminalisation as it relates to COVID-19 criminalisation, has been published in a fifth language, Arabic.

Download the statement in Arabic / تحميل البيان باللغة العربية

We are grateful to our Global Advisory Panel member, Elie Balan, head of the LGBT Health Department (M-Coalition) at the Arab Foundation for Freedoms and Equality, for undertaking the translation. 

The statement was originally published on 25 March in English, French and Spanish, and on 26 March in Russian.

The HIV Justice Network (HJN) continues to monitor the many ways legal, policy and police responses to COVID-19 is negatively impacting the human rights of people living with HIV, as well as individuals and communities most impacted by HIV. 

Each week, Sylvie Beaumont, HJN’s Research / Outreach Co-ordinator, curates our HIV Justice Weekly newsletter. She ensures that all of the previous week’s key articles and podcasts critiquing punitive responses to HIV and/or COVID-19, as well as HIV and COVID-19 criminalisation cases can be found in one place.

If you haven’t already signed up to receive the newsletter, published each Friday, you can do so at: https://www.hivjustice.net/hiv-justice-weekly

 

Global HIV Criminalisation Database launched today
on the new HIV Justice Network website

Today, we are delighted to announce a new version of the HIV Justice Network (HJN) website, www.hivjustice.net.

The centrepiece of the new website is the Global HIV Criminalisation Database, which comprises three separate but interrelated databases:

  • Laws and Analyses – a new portal providing updated information and analysis of HIV criminalisation laws previously collated by GNP+ as part of the Global Criminalisation Scan;
  • Cases – a regularly updated searchable global database of reported HIV criminalisation cases; and
  • Organisations – a new directory of organisations around the world actively working against HIV criminalisation.

Each section of the Database also features an interactive search tool and global map providing a visual account of where different kinds of laws are used, where various types of cases have been reported, and where organisations operate.

Laws and Analyses

The list of laws used for HIV criminalisation contained in the Global HIV Criminalisation Database is based on GNP+’s groundbreaking Global Criminalisation Scan.

“We hope this new, improved version of our website will continue to be an essential source of up-to-date information for individuals and organisations advocating against HIV criminalisation around the world. We would especially like to acknowledge GNP+’s tremendous work developing and promoting their Global Criminalisation Scan, and take seriously our responsibility as custodians of global HIV criminalisation data moving forward.”

Edwin J Bernard, HJN’s Executive Director

Further substantial assistance was provided by Australian law firm Hall & Wilcox, with support from the UNAIDS secretariat in Geneva, as well as networks of advocates and civil society organisations from around the world.

In addition, we are grateful to the Center for HIV Law and Policy for allowing us to link to their regularly updated original research and analysis on HIV-related criminalisation in the United States, excerpted from ‘HIV Criminalization in the United States: A Sourcebook on State and Federal HIV Criminal Law and Practice’.

We are currently confirming data for a number of jurisdictions, particularly those in the Caribbean, Latin America, the Middle East and North Africa. Those data will be published shortly.

Cases

We continue to include a searchable list of cases primarily curated from media reports. Although the reports do not usually reflect the views or values of HJN, they provide examples of the way HIV criminalisation cases are publicly described. 

We count cases from the moment there is a media report, even if the case does not reach a court. However, total estimated case numbers for any particular jurisdiction may not always tally with the number of case reports on our site, because not all cases are reported in the media. We also include a range of other sources to estimate case numbers, including information provided to us by local community agencies and academic institutions, and/or found in court databases.

Therefore cases, and case numbers, should be considered illustrative of what is likely to be a more widespread, poorly documented use of criminal law against people living with HIV.

Organisations

Another new element of the Global HIV Criminalisation Database is a directory of organisations undertaking a range of activities related to HIV criminalisation, including case monitoring, community mobilisation, legal support, political advocacy, public education, research, and work with the media.

The directory only includes organisations that have ‘opted-in’ to our previous surveys by asking to be included in the directory, and inclusion does not imply endorsement by HJN. If your organisation is not included in the directory and you would like to be included, please fill in this form. If you wish to amend your organisation’s details, please contact us, letting us know the information you wish to change.

News, Publications, Videos

The website continues to feature regular news about all aspects of HIV criminalisation, including news curated from other sources that we think is relevant to the global movement to end HIV criminalisation.

Earlier this year we relaunched our newsletter, HIV Justice Weekly. Published each Friday, it is a dynamic and useful summary of the week’s news collated by HJN. Given the current parallel pandemic of bad laws and overly zealous law enforcement, this is where we are also currently covering punitive responses to COVID-19, especially where these responses intersect with HIV criminalisation.

Recent publications produced by the HIV Justice Network, including our Advancing HIV Justice 3 report, and videos produced by us and others can also be found on the website.

About HJN

The HIV Justice Network (HJN) is a global information and advocacy hub for individuals and organisations working to end the inappropriate use of the criminal law to regulate and punish people living with HIV. Our mission is to collate, create and disseminate information and resources enabling individuals and communities to effectively advocate against inappropriate criminal prosecutions for HIV non-disclosure, potential or perceived exposure and transmission.

The HIV Justice Network also serves as the secretariat for a global coalition campaigning for HIV JUSTICE WORLDWIDE (HJWW), run by a nine organisation Steering Committee and with more than 100 members. Visit www.hivjusticeworldwide.org (also available in French, Russian, and Spanish) to learn more about what we do, what you can do, and how you can join the movement to end HIV criminalisation.

HJN is also the lead grantee for the HIV Justice Global Consortium, funded by Robert Carr Fund for civil society networks, which is the mechanism through which HJN – and most HJWW activities – are funded.

US: Advocates who fought to modernise HIV criminalisation laws for years are wary about what could happen around coronavirus

Will COVID-19 Make Modernizing HIV Criminal Laws Harder?

As states and municipalities struggle with how to enforce COVID-19 distancing and shutdown measures, many HIV criminal law reform advocates are looking warily at the news and waiting for history to repeat, or at least rhyme. Advocates expect new criminal laws on COVID-19 transmission, just like statutes enacted around HIV transmission, to come sooner or later.

These advocates say getting ahead of such laws is crucial—and that now is the time to remind lawmakers and law enforcement that statutes around infectious diseases must be grounded in public health and science, not inflamed by hysteria; in other words, avoid what happened with HIV laws decades ago.

It’s speculation at this point: In the three months since COVID-19 emerged in the U.S., no new criminal laws around transmission of the virus have been enacted. But prosecutions of transmission of COVID-19, deliberate or not, are probably going to happen, and there will be open questions: Did the victim contract the virus from one person who can be identified?

Belly Mujinga, a 47 year-old Black rail worker in the UK who was spat on by a man while on duty, died of COVID-19, but prosecutors will have a difficult time proving whether he contributed to Mujinga’s death, even if they find him and even if he does have the virus. Here in the U.S., most cases involving spitting usually occur when someone with HIV (and sometimes hepatitis C) is accused of spitting at police officers when arrests are being made—even though saliva is not a route of HIV transmission.

But if more incidents like this surface around COVID-19, lawmakers might be tempted to pass laws subjecting anyone coughing or spitting on another person—or just coughing in public—to misdemeanors, or even felonies. That’s something HIV advocates hope to prevent. They’ve been trying to overturn criminal laws like that for decades.

TheBody asked several HIV criminal law modernization advocates about what the novel coronavirus pandemic could mean for HIV laws, and vice versa. Most were cautiously optimistic that their years of educating lawmakers and law enforcement could make it easier to prevent new, draconian laws around criminal transmission of the COVID-19 virus. Some say that, if done right, the COVID crisis could present an opportunity to renew efforts in educating law enforcement, lawmakers, and the public that HIV criminal statutes are still on the books, still being enforced, and have done nothing to slow the transmission of the virus.

Trepidation in Iowa

A provision of the federal Ryan White Comprehensive AIDS Resources Emergency (CARE) Act in 1990 required states to certify their ability to prosecute any HIV-positive person who knowingly exposed another person, whether they actually transmitted it or not. Some states relied on existing statutes; others, like Iowa, wrote new ones around transmitting HIV. In almost every case, these new HIV laws went far beyond laws on the books.

Iowa revamped some of its HIV laws in 2014, allowing a tiered-sentencing system of felonies and misdemeanors, rather than a flat 25-year prison term. Those convicted under the law no longer have to register as sex offenders. But Iowa activists say there is much more to be done.

Tami Haught, organizing and training coordinator for the Sero Project, fought to modernize Iowa’s laws for years, and she’s wary about what could happen around coronavirus.

“I’m a pessimist,” Haught tells TheBody. “The fear of the unknown makes society reach for criminal laws. We don’t have a strong public health knowledge. People don’t understand disease, generally. If deaths continue to rise (from COVID-19), it worries me that legislators will create new laws to prosecute, spurred on by an uneducated public demanding new laws.”

Haught says new COVID-19 laws could be stopped, but that will require a broad and diverse team of advocates. “In Iowa, it took years for all [HIV] advocates to speak with one message, before going to the legislature. We shared our talking points with the League of Women Voters, not a usual subject, and the League made one of their top four goals the repeal of HIV laws in 2014. They had relationships with politicians that we didn’t have.”

Partisan Divide in Washington State

Lauren Fanning, with the Washington HIV Justice Alliance, is still celebrating a significant revision of that state’s HIV criminal laws, which reduce penalties for HIV exposure from a felony to a misdemeanor, require specific intent to transmit HIV and for transmission to occur, and remove the requirement for sex offender registration. It was accomplished on a party-line vote and signed into law by Gov. Jay Inslee in March.

“No Republican voted for [the reform],” Fanning says. Advocates didn’t get everything they wanted: Republicans demanded an amendment to keep one felony for limited circumstances—if an HIV-positive person transmits HIV to a minor or vulnerable adult, that is still a first-degree felony.

“A lot of Republicans in the legislature want to keep HIV laws and also criminalize other diseases,” Fanning says. “As long as it is not part of their reality, they will make it criminal. They don’t believe these diseases can affect them. They also wanted to quarantine people during the Ebola crisis.”

That’s why Fanning expects Republicans to introduce new COVID-19 transmission criminal laws, and she and other advocates will fight them. “We don’t need a new law. COVID-19 could apply to noxious or poisonous substances under existing law,” she says.

“We will be checking laws next year when the legislature is in session to see if something is slipped in. I told the health department to be prepared to step in front of any laws.”

Don’t Fill the Jails

Catherine Hanssens, founder and executive director of The Center for HIV Law and Policy (CHLP), says COVID presents an opportunity to build on the groundwork laid by HIV criminal law reform advocates, by “pointing out the futility and cruelty of criminal penalties.”

“[COVID] gives state advocates the opportunity to talk to lawmakers about responding to a virus with a police approach, and let them know that if you arrest someone without a mask to prevent transmission and then put them in jail, in close quarters, that is not productive.”

Hanssens and other advocates are calling for limited prisoner release. Correctional facilities, along with nursing homes, meat-packing plants, and anywhere people are confined to tight spaces, have very high rates of transmission of COVID-19.

As for how the COVID-19 pandemic might impact HIV criminal law reform, Hanssens said it might not hurt the movement, but it might put it on pause. “States are focused on dealing with the immediate pandemic. Getting legislators to focus on something that is not COVID-19 might not work now, and practically, it may not be strategically the best choice to push HIV criminal law reform right now.”

But that doesn’t mean continuing education and coalition-building can’t take place, Hanssens says. “This is a chance for all in anti-criminalization to see the necessity of looking outside our silo and make intersectionality a reality.” Out of concern that people with HIV would not be prioritized for scarce resources in emergency care in New York City, last month CHLP worked with the disability rights movement to draft principles for allocating resources. The principles say that older people and those with disfavored statuses should have equal access to other respiratory therapies, testing, medications, critical care beds, and staff time, which current guidance fails to adequately protect.

A Silver Lining in a Red State

Indiana, one of the nation’s highly conservative states, has several HIV criminal laws. If you know you have HIV and are accused of HIV nondisclosure to sexual or needle-sharing partners, or you attempt to donate or sell blood, semen, or plasma—you could face a felony. The state also has HIV-related sentence enhancements to its criminal battery in the form of bodily fluid laws, including fluids that do not transmit HIV.

IUPUI associate professor and HIV modernization activist Carrie Foote, Ph.D., says Indiana is making progress to modernize many of its draconian HIV criminal laws, but much work remains. Unlike most other states, Indiana also criminalizes transmission of viral hepatitis and tuberculosis, which is transmitted in similar ways to COVID-19. Because of that, Foote thinks lawmakers could try to criminalize COVID-19 as well.

At least one Indiana prosecutor has vowed to prosecute anyone who knowingly attempts to infect others with COVID-19 but didn’t say whether a new law was needed.

Foote hopes for the best-case scenario as the COVID-19 epidemic plays out: lawmakers not adding COVID-19 laws, and a new opportunity for advocates to show the problems of antiquated HIV and other disease-related criminal laws.

“For any disease, we need to say that laws should be science-based,” Foote says. “Any criminal laws should be based on intent to harm, which is hard to prove, and it should be hard to prove. It shouldn’t be so easy to take away freedom.”

Canada: Review of HIV non-disclosure laws still in place in Canada

Everything you need to know about Canada’s HIV non-disclosure laws

How LGBTQ2 communities are affected, what laws remain in place and what’s being done to end unjust criminalization

In early February, a man identified only by the initials N.G. had his appeal heard at Ontario’s Superior Court in what advocacy groups hoped could establish a new precedent for Canada’s HIV disclosure laws. N.G. was convicted of aggravated sexual assault in 2017 after three complainants said he did not disclose his HIV diagnosis before their sexual encounters. He used a condom and did not transmit the virus to any of his partners. Still, N.G. was sentenced to 42 months in prison—short of the life sentence an aggravated sexual assault conviction could carry.

According to a CBC report, the Crown attorney for the case, Grace Choi, said “low risk or lack of intent to transmit the virus are not sufficient, even if a person uses a condom.” She also reportedly questioned whether condom use “prevents the reasonable possibility of transmission.” Failing to disclose a person’s HIV status “deprives the sexual partner of meaningful choice,” she told the court.

But “continuing to criminalize people living with HIV who use condoms is discriminatory and an overly broad application of the criminal law that is harmful and bad for public health,” wrote Richard Elliott, executive director of the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network (CHLN), in a statement in response to the appeal hearing.

The case highlights the patchwork of laws that direct Canada’s HIV non-disclosure laws, and just how complex they can be. Here’s everything you need to know about HIV non-disclosure laws in the country.

What is HIV non-disclosure criminalization?

In Canada, there is no criminal statute that requires people to disclose their HIV-positive status before sex. But courts have taken matters into their own hands when it comes to defining when disclosure should happen.

The Supreme Court of Canada weighed in on the matter in 2012, with two rulings that gave more clarity on the issue. Judges ruled that people living with HIV have an obligation to disclose their positive status before sex that “poses a serious risk of bodily harm.” That means disclosure is not required when using a condom for vaginal sex or when the HIV-positive person has a low viral load. What the ruling does not account for are other forms of sex, such as anal and oral.

But provincial and municipal courts dealing with HIV non-disclosure cases often prosecute outside of this Supreme Court ruling. According to the CHLN, many people living with HIV have been charged and convicted despite there having been little to no risk of transmission during their sexual encounters.

“The theory is, because you can die from HIV, then that’s an endangerment to your life,” Elliott says.

Being convicted of aggravated sexual assault can have dramatic consequences: Those convicted are automatically registered as sex offenders for life. People who are not Canadian citizens—including visitors and permanent residents—can be deported. And for many, the charge can lead to further stigma beyond their HIV status, including isolation and difficulty finding housing, employment and even healthcare support.

What’s the science behind HIV non-disclosure laws?

Since the HIV/AIDS epidemic of the 1980s, healthcare researchers and providers have made strides in managing the virus. With proper treatment, many living with HIV can have what is considered an “undetectable” viral load. That means the virus becomes so suppressed that HIV-positive people cannot transmit it, even in the absence of other forms of protection such as condoms, or medications like pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) and post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP). The science has given rise to the phrase U=U, or “undetectable equals untransmittable.”

According to CATIE, Canada’s resource for HIV/AIDS and hepatitis C information, studies define “undetectable” as less than 200 copies of the virus per millilitre of blood. It’s higher than what most clinical tests aim for, which is 40 to 50 copies per millilitre. Canada’s Supreme Court uses the 200 copies-per-millilitre value—meaning, if someone has less than 200 copies/ml of the virus in their blood, there is a negligible reasonable risk of transmission and therefore no obligation to disclose.

What is the federal government doing about HIV non-disclosure criminalization in Canada?

In 2018, the federal government released a directive to the Public Prosecution Service of Canada that narrowed the scope of Canada’s HIV non-disclosure prosecution. It follows a 2017 report from the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights regarding Canada’s laws surrounding HIV non-disclosure.

The 2017 report notes that, because the current law treats all cases involving a “realistic possibility of transmission” as aggravated sexual assaults, there’s been an over-criminalization of those living with HIV: They’ve been charged with the most serious sexual offence on Canada’s books.

The 2018 directive says:

The criminal law will continue to apply to persons living with HIV if they do not disclose, or misrepresent, their HIV status before sexual activity that poses a realistic possibility of HIV transmission… This should not apply in cases where the person has not maintained a suppressed viral load but used condoms or engaged only in oral sex or was taking treatment as prescribed, unless other risk factors are present.

It also says that police should instead charge individuals with—and prosecutors should pursue cases where—criminal offences that are non-sexual in nature, such as in the cases of assault, criminal negligence or nuisance. This model follows in the U.K.’s footsteps, creating more flexibility for prosecutors and ensuring that those charged would not automatically be registered as sex offenders. If a person living with HIV has sought or received services from public health authorities, it should be taken into account when determining whether it’s in the public interest to pursue criminal charges against them.

The catch, however, is that the directive only immediately applies to the territories—the Yukon, Nunavut and the Northwest Territories—because the Public Prosecution Service of Canada is the prosecutor there; the provinces have their own prosecutors. Despite the directive, it’s still up to individual provinces to make their own choices in relation to non-disclosure prosecutions. That said, Ontario, British Columbia and Quebec have similar directives in place.

The 2017 Justice Committee report also recommended Parliament convene to establish a federal-provincial working group to develop a common prosecutorial directive for non-disclosure laws across Canada. In a media response to Xtra, the Justice Department was unable to confirm if that working group has been established.

In June 2019, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada David Lametti acknowledged that the directive should go further, and, if re-elected, the Liberals would tackle the issue. In a follow-up from Xtra, the Department of Justice was unable to elaborate on what concrete measures will be taken.

Who is most affected by HIV non-disclosure laws in Canada?

Alexander McClelland, a researcher and Banting Postdoctoral Fellow at the University of Ottawa, has found that found HIV non-disclosure criminalization affects a number of communities in different ways—including a significant number of straight men who have sex with women. But when looking into other, more marginalized communities, McClelland discovered that those who engage in sex work and LGBTQ2 communities experience unique challenges with non-disclosure criminalization.

Of cases involving LGBTQ2 folks, McClelland says those involving gay men are most sensationalized by the media. “Gay men still represent a majority of the HIV cases in Canada, and I think the way in which gay men have [different] kinds of sex freaks out authorities,” he says. “It’s very polarizing when it comes out. A lot of people think when someone has been promiscuous and hasn’t disclosed their HIV status that they should be prosecuted or criminalized. Usually someone’s name and picture ends up in the media through the police—and that can create a sense of hysteria for those who slept with that person.”

McClelland says these media depictions, contribute to an ongoing stigmatization of people living with HIV. “The only time you see a representation of people living with HIV is when it’s a police photo in the media about them being a violent perpetrator spreading HIV,” he says. “In my research, when I actually spoke to people, they understood they were trying to do something to protect their partners by taking medication, using condoms or overtly telling people.”

Another barrier that increases the risk of prosecution, McClelland adds, is a lack of access to viral suppression medication. In line with the 2018 federal directive, Ontario, Quebec and B.C.  no longer prosecute people who can achieve undetectable viral loads. This caveat affects a wide number of socially marginalized communities, including people who are street involved, have recently been released from prison or those working on the street as sex workers, for example.

“This means those people will be further marginalized socially and thought of as more deviant, more diseased and more infectious—and more in need of criminalization,” McClelland says.

What still needs to be done to address these issues in Canadian law?

While reform in criminal justice has yet to happen, it could be on the horizon. Last June, the Justice Committee issued another report on HIV criminalization. This time, it called for two major changes: Removing HIV non-disclosure from the reach of sexual assault law, and limiting the criminalization of HIV to cases with actual transmission only.

In regards to the latter, CHLN wants the law to go further, limiting prosecution to intentional transmission of HIV. “There is an increasing amount of people that see using sexual assault laws for this as problematic,” Elliott says. “We don’t have an HIV-specific provision, or even an STI-specific provision in the Criminal Code. But the way the law has evolved we do effectively have prosecutions that target HIV-positive people with sexual assault.”

HIV Justice Network reaches key milestone with the publication of our first annual report

Today, the HIV Justice Network (HJN) reaches an important milestone with the publication of our first annual report, covering January – December 2019.

2019 was a landmark year for HJN, not only in terms of organisational growth, but also in terms of the scale-up of key resources – most published in four languages – and the provision of technical and financial support to organisations and networks in many regions of the world, all of which led to some remarkable advocacy successes.

HJWW2020 HJN board and teamThe HJN Team and Supervisory Board (SB) dine together following a successful Strategy Meeting in Amsterdam, January 2020 (L-R): Paul Kidd (Secretary, SB) , Sally Cameron (Senior Policy Analyst), Rebekah Webb (Senior Associate), Sylvie Beaumont (Outreach / Research Co-ordinator), Lisa Power (Chair, SB), Dymfke van Lanen (Finance Manager), Edwin Bernard (Executive Director), Julian Hows (GAP Co-ordinator) and Raoul Fransen (Treasurer, SB).

 

“Our 2019 Annual Report illustrates the importance of joined-up activism towards a common goal. We can all play a part in resisting HIV criminalisation at home and across the globe. HJN, under the passionate leadership of Edwin Bernard, gives us the tools, the structures and the inspiration to do the job.” Lisa Power, Chair, Supervisory Board

 

Members of HJN’s team also participated in a number of global and regional meetings, presenting on various aspects of our work, such as monitoring, supporting strategic litigation, and working with the media.

As a result, we forged stronger relationships with many organisations undertaking human rights work around the world, including establishing new contacts for possible collaborative projects in the future.

As well as HJN’s own workplan, much of the team’s time is spent co-ordinating a wide range of activities on behalf of HIV JUSTICE WORLDWIDE (HJWW), as well as managing the Robert Carr Fund grant to the HIV Justice Global Consortium.

“This report highlights the achievements of our small team and our global partners in the last year, and demonstrates that we are delivering on our mission of challenging HIV criminalisation around the globe. We strive to defend the human rights of marginalised people with HIV in the face of unjustified and unscientific punitive laws – something that is now in even sharper focus with the coronavirus pandemic.” Paul Kidd, Secretary, Supervisory Board

 

There are exciting plans ahead for HJN in 2020, including a new version of HJN’s website that will incorporate – and update – data previously collected in GNP+’s Global Criminalisation Scan, and the debut of HJN’s live streamed web show, HIV Justice Live!

The PJP Update – April 2020

The April 2020 edition of the Positive Justice Project newsletter is available here.

Proudly announcing HIV Justice Network’s Global Advisory Panel

Today, the HIV Justice Network is proud to announce our Global Advisory Panel (GAP), an international expert reference group of activists, lawyers and academics – more than half of whom are openly living with HIV – from all regions of the world who are working on ending  HIV and intersectional criminalisations.

Sarai Chisala-Tempelhoff, a Malawian human rights lawyer, says: “As an African woman and feminist who has been researching and exploring the interactions between law, HIV and women’s lives for almost two decades, being a member of the GAP feels like a fitting culmination of my life’s passions and goals: to keep bridging that gap between marginalised women’s lived realities and the laws that they live under.”

 

Members have been selected on the basis that they have specific skills, interests, and knowledge of the issues that we work on, and how this intersects with other social justice issues and movements.

Elie Balan, who works on LGBT rights in the Middle East / North Africa region says: “As a person living with HIV I have seen HIV criminalisation happen around me and to people I know, and to me it is a personal issue more than anything. I am excited to be part of the GAP to ensure such practices are ceased within my country and region.”

 

The GAP, co-ordinated by HJN team member, Julian Hows, has been convened to assist HJN deliver on its mission by:

  • Providing feedback on our current work, activities and outputs.
  • Being both a ‘critical friend’ as well as an ambassador for the ways that we are delivering on our mission, strategically and operationally.
  • Assisting us with building strategic alliances towards the common goal of ending HIV-related criminalisation around the world.

Alexander McClelland, a Canadian activist and social scientist living with HIV, says: “Being part of the GAP is vital to ensure we share globally what is happening in our respective countries, so we can learn strategies of resistance, and build a forceful collective response to help end practices of criminalisation.”

 

All members have indicated a willingness to serve for an initial period of two years (i.e. 1 January 2020 until 31 December 2021).  In fact, the GAP has met twice – virtually – since initally coming together in January 2020, including earlier this week where information was exchanged regarding the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on HJN’s work, and in the countries, regions and constituents served by GAP members. 

Jeffry Acaba, who fights for the rights of people living with HIV in the Asia Pacific region: “HIV criminalisation continues to take place in many parts of the world and the platform that the GAP provides is vital to our collective effort to finally end this unjust and unfair policy practice. I’m honored to be contributing towards that change through the GAP.”

 

We very much welcome all of the GAP members, and look forward to working together to achieve HIV justice.

The current members of the Global Advisory Panel are:

  • Jeffry Acaba (ASIA PACIFIC)
  • Elie Ballan (MENA)
  • Edwin Cameron (AFRICA) 
  • Sarai Chisala-Tempelhoff (AFRICA)
  • Cecilia Chung (NORTH AMERICA)
  • Michaela Clayton (AFRICA)
  • Ann Fordham (EUROPE)
  • David Haerry (EUROPE)
  • Jules Kim (ASIA PACIFIC)
  • Ron MacInnis (NORTH AMERICA)
  • Allan Maleche (AFRICA)
  • Alexander McClelland (NORTH AMERICA)
  • Gennady Roschupkin (EECA)
  • Robert Suttle (NORTH AMERICA)

To read more about the individual members of the GAP – and their many achievements – please visit HJN’s dedicated GAP page.

HIV criminalisation still an issue during COVID-19 pandemic

On 21 February, just prior to the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, we celebrated a week where – for the first time in years – we saw no reported cases of HIV criminalisation anywhere in the world.

Soon after we began to notice fewer reports of HIV criminalisation cases and fewer articles related to our collective advocacy.  We wondered at the time whether this may be due, in part, to our previous advocacy successes, athough we thought it was more likely a reflection of the media and the criminal justice system changing their focus to COVID-19.

Certainly, police have been unbelievably busy dealing with ensuring lockdowns and quarantines are followed – some more zealously than others – and courts, as well as parliaments are either closed or dealing only with the most urgent of cases. This is having a concerning impact upon the processing of HIV criminalisation cases, including appeals, leaving those unjustly accused or convicted in limbo and at greater risk of acquiring COVID-19 whilst on remand or in prison.

Now, after several weeks of seeing no HIV-related criminal cases, this past week we have, unfortunately, documented two further HIV-related arrests – a woman in the Rostov region of Russia is accused of passing on HIV to her husband and faces five years in prison; and a man in Louisiana in the United States was arrested after allegedly spitting on an officer and then charged with “intentional exposure to the AIDS virus” after he informed medical staff of his HIV-positive status.

The US news report notes – without obvious irony – the Kafkaesque nature of the law in Louisiana by concluding:

While saliva alone cannot transmit HIV or AIDS, Louisiana law holds that knowingly infected people who spit at first responders can face up to 11 years in prison and/or pay a $6,000 fine.

 

This week, we also saw a remarkably comprehensive article about HIV criminalisation in Tajikistan, which explored how and why the country’s criminal code potentially considers every HIV-positive citizen to be a criminal, what this means for people living with HIV in the country, and how to avoid prosecution as well as ways to organise.

Finally, some good news relating to HIV criminalisation as well as to COVID-19 criminalisation.

In Spain, the Supreme Court upheld the acquittal of a man accused of criminal HIV transmission noting that evidence pointed to the complainant being aware of his status prior to agreeing to condomless sex, meaning there was consent. 

And in Malta, where it was proposed earlier in the week to add COVID-19 to the list of communicable diseases covered by the law used to criminalise the wilful or negligent spread of HIV and hepatitis, this proposal has since been put on hold, due to very real concerns that this may do more harm than good for public health, as well as create difficulties around proof in court.

The Times of Malta reports:

The law could also strain the already stretched law enforcement resources if they suddenly had to deal with a flood of reports over possible criminal spreading of the virus.

“In essence, this seems like a good idea at first glance but it presents a number of problems,” one government minister privy to the discussions said.

The possibility of such a reform had not even been brought before Cabinet yet, he said, adding he understood it “has been put on the back burner for now”. 

“We have bigger fish to fry, right now.”

 

If only other punitive-minded governments – and overly-zealous law enforcement officers – around the world thought this way about COVID-19 and other communicable diseases right now, including, of course, HIV.

Tajikistan: The Criminal Code potentially considers every HIV-positive citizen to be a criminal

How can we save 14,000 Tajiks from the threat of prison and the country from an epidemic?

The Criminal Code potentially considers every HIV-positive citizen to be a criminal, not a person in need of state support.

Why do criminal measures against Tajiks living with HIV contribute to the rapid growth of the HIV/AIDS epidemic in the country? What is the practice in neighbouring countries? And, most importantly, how citizens can protect their rights, the correspondent of “Asia-Plus” understood.

The approach to the fight against HIV in Tajikistan, when law enforcement agencies, not doctors, take over, can have the opposite effect. This is the view of Tajik and international human rights activists, as well as the UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women.

According to the Ministry of Health, more than 14 thousand people with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) live in the country, almost half of whom do not even know about their HIV-positive status, and their number keeps growing.

On November 9, 2018, the UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDOW) issued recommendations to Tajikistan, noting that there are a number of barriers in access to health care, which lead to the rapid spread of HIV.

Thus, paragraph 40 contains a recommendation to decriminalize HIV – complete abolition of Article 125 of the Criminal Code of Tajikistan. In the same year, in 2018, 33 criminal cases were initiated against 26 HIV-positive people, and in 2019 this number was increased by at least 6 more cases. These data were voiced by the prosecutor of Khujand Habibullo Vohidov at the coordination council of law enforcement agencies, on 2 May last year.

Since the beginning of 2020, human rights activists of the Centre for Human Rights and ReACT have already registered two such cases.

Article 125 is no longer in effect.
According to the Global Network of PLHIV (GNP+) Stigma and Discrimination Program Manager Alexandra Volgina, Article 125 of the Criminal Code of Tajikistan is taken from the Soviet legislation and reflects the reality of those years when there were no drugs for the disease. HIV rapidly progressed into AIDS, which was in fact a death sentence.

The first part of the 125th article of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Tajikistan speaks about infecting another person with venereal disease by a person who knew that he had this disease. This is despite the fact that antiretroviral therapy (ARV – ed.) completely eliminates the risk of transmission of the immunodeficiency virus and makes a person with HIV completely safe in terms of virus transmission.

It is important to note that antiretroviral therapy works only against HIV and does not protect against other sexually transmitted infections. Therefore, it is important not to forget about condom use as well.
“Criminalisation in itself is a stigma that society perpetuates in law or practice against people living with HIV. They are treated as criminals by default,” says Mikhail Golichenko, a lawyer and international human rights analyst for the Canadian Legal Network.

By placing all responsibility for preventing the transmission of immunodeficiency virus to people living with HIV, the article on criminalization of HIV, in fact, gives society false hope, misleads society when people think that “if HIV is criminalized, I will be warned in any case,” said the lawyer.

In Tajikistan, the diagnosis of HIV is perceived as a threat. This is a big problem, which under the current global scientific base is simply pointless.

The principle of ‘Undefined=Untransferable’ (if a person with HIV receives treatment, the virus in his blood is reduced to a minimum and then he cannot transmit HIV to his sexual partner) is a long-proven scientific fact and a turning point in the history of the fight against HIV/AIDS.

Thus, today HIV-positive women, while receiving treatment, give birth to healthy children, people with HIV live as long as without it. Families where partners with different HIV statuses, without transmitting the disease to each other, live happily, and this happens not somewhere far away, but in neighboring countries: Russia, Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan.

Women in a trap
Under article 125 of the Criminal Code, women are mainly recruited in Tajikistan. Human rights expert in the aspect of access to HIV prevention and treatment NGO “Center for Human Rights” Larisa Aleksandrova, says about the stereotype inherent in Tajik society – that HIV infection is mainly caused by sex workers.

In fact, according to the National Programme on Combating HIV Epidemic in 2017-2020, HIV prevalence among sex workers is 3.5%.

Heterosexual sex is the main route of HIV transmission in Tajikistan. In some regions, the proportion of such cases reaches 70%.
Larisa Alexandrova shared real examples of violations of women’s rights from the practice of lawyers of the NGO “Center for Human Rights” Zebo Kasymova and Dilafruz Samadova.

In order to protect personal data, no names are given.

Punishment without a crime
“A 41-year-old resident of Khatlon province was previously convicted under part 2 of article 125 of the Criminal Code and was sentenced to one year in prison in 2018. By court order, she was released early in 9 months due to poor health.

But already in 2019 the woman was repeatedly detained. A criminal case was initiated against her in the same episodes as in 2018. None of the sexual partners in the case were found to be HIV-positive, neither in 2018 nor in 2019. However, the court found the woman guilty again, only under Part 1 of Article 125 of the Criminal Code she was sentenced to 1 year in prison. Under article 71 of the Criminal Code, the court did not impose a suspended sentence, but gave her a probationary period for correction, but under control of her behavior.

Expert opinion: Analysis of this case, according to the lawyer, revealed a low level of professionalism of law enforcement officials, both in terms of knowledge of HIV and in legal proceedings. The reopening of a case on the same episode, on the same facts of a criminal case against a person is a direct violation of the Constitution of Tajikistan and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the expert assures.

– The woman served 9 months for the first time, and under Part 2 of Article 125 of the Criminal Code. Initially, the wrong norm was applied, as Part 2 says about HIV infection. But none of the sexual partners was found to have HIV. Accordingly, there should have been part 1, – sums up Larisa Alexandrova.

A trial without a victim.
“A resident of Khujand, who injected drugs, volunteered for an NGO. A criminal case was initiated on 11 October 2018 under part 1 of article 125 of the Criminal Code. The victims of this case were male. During the trial the man stated that he did not agree with the fact that he was recognized as a victim.

After the initiation of the criminal case on the basis of the commission expert opinion, it was found that the man did not have HIV. At the trial, the lawyer asked questions: “Did the defendant offer to use a condom during sexual intercourse?”, to which the man answered:

“Yes, but I refused. I know that she has this disease, but nevertheless, I love her, I will live with her, I have no complaints or demands to her”.
The legislation of the Republic of Tajikistan refers Article 125 part 1 to the cases of private and public prosecution, which means that these cases are initiated at the request of the victim of the crime, but in case of reconciliation with the accused, the proceedings are not terminated. Despite this, the defendant was sentenced to one year and two months’ deprivation of liberty under article 125, part 1, of the Criminal Code.

Expert opinion: In this case, the person was put in jail despite the fact that she had good medical data. In addition, her sexual partner knew that she had HIV. He did not even submit any application. In that case, the case should have been initiated at least by the prosecutor, not the internal affairs system. And we don’t know who reported this case, either. In this case, the procedure for instituting criminal proceedings and the defendant’s procedural rights were also violated.

The investigator did not even let the attorney or the person under investigation see the indictment. The indictment was presented to the lawyer who defended the woman for the first time at the request of the police. Later the defendant refused to defend him, and she was represented by a lawyer from the NGO “Center for Human Rights”. The lawyer filed a complaint against the investigator with the prosecutor’s office, but the prosecutor’s office found no violations.

The judge did not pay attention to all these violations and passed a sentence, comments the expert Aleksandrova. The case was appealed both to the cassation and supervisory authorities, but the judges considered that there were no violations.

International expert Mikhail Golichenko explained what “knowingly” means from the legal point of view.

Part 1 of Article 125 of the Criminal Code of Tajikistan provides for liability for knowingly putting another person in danger of contracting the human immunodeficiency virus. This article does not provide for such a sign as “infection”. In other words, putting another person in danger of infection is sufficient.

The word “knowingly”, interpreted by lawyer Mikhail Golichenko, means that a person knew in advance about the presence of HIV. Being put in danger, without infection itself, means that the crime is a formal one.

For comparison, the Criminal Code of the Republic of Tajikistan also has actions with the material composition, where the obligatory sign is the public dangerous consequences. For example, murder is a material composition, as for the completed composition it is necessary to have such socially dangerous consequences as the death of a person.

For crimes with formal composition, the only form of guilt can only be direct intent. If a person was aware of public danger of his or her action (inaction) and wanted to commit exactly these actions. If there are signs in the case that, for example, the sexual intercourse without a condom was due to fear of violence by the partner, at the request of the partner. Or for other reasons, which give grounds to conclude that there is no desire to put in danger the infection, it is impossible to prosecute under paragraph 1 of Art. 125 of the Criminal Code. There is no necessary element of the crime – guilt in the form of direct intent.

“No treatment, no punishment”: expert recommendations for Tajikistan
Lawyer Mikhail Golichenko and international human rights expert Aleksandra Volgina are sure that Article 125 is not needed, because intentional HIV transmission is the most likely. In addition, this article is covered by another article of the Criminal Code of Tajikistan – “On causing harm to health”. They are convinced that all parts 1, 2, 3 of Article 125 of the Criminal Code of Tajikistan have long lost their relevance.

In itself, the existence of special responsibility for HIV infection is the stigma attached to people living with HIV as enshrined in the criminal law. And in this sense, Article 125 of the Criminal Code of RT plays a negative role in HIV prevention. In this regard, the best option would be to abolish this norm completely. For rare cases of intentional HIV infection it is possible to apply Article 111 of the Criminal Code of Tajikistan on the liability for intentional harm to health of average gravity.

According to Tatiana Deshko, director of international programs in the Public Health Alliance, in Tajikistan it is necessary to bring medical issues under the control of physicians.

– Let’s look at the results of the “work” of this criminal code article. In Tajikistan, more than one million HIV tests were conducted in 2019, and just over 1,000 new HIV cases were identified – that’s very little. People who have a real risk and HIV infection are simply afraid to be tested. That is not surprising, and it happens everywhere.

“Imagine that you would be isolated for the coronovirus not at home or in a hospital, but in an isolation ward and prison. “Then why would you be tested? Still, medical issues should be dealt with by doctors, not the police – then everything would be in its place and we would become healthier,” says Tatiana Deshko.
Thus, Larisa Aleksandrova said that the telephone hotline of the NGO “Center for Human Rights” also began to be contacted by forensic medical experts on gender reassignment and documents of title for transgender people. Such cooperation began to take shape after trainings for some judges: they begin to refer people living with HIV, who are accused under Article 125 of the Criminal Code, for legal assistance. This suggests that the information and scientifically proven arguments are obvious, as well as the fact that the authorities, receiving more information, are ready to contribute in every way to the reasonable support of human rights.

“The Global Fund confirms its readiness to continue supporting Tajikistan’s efforts in the fight against AIDS in implementing an effective response to HIV based on scientific evidence,” said Alexandrina Iovita, Human Rights Adviser, Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria to Asia Plus.
– The focus of these activities is to prevent new cases, increase ARV coverage and reduce barriers to human rights violations faced by key populations in accessing services. Evidence and recommendations from technical partners such as UNAIDS and UNDP indicate that overly broad criminalization of HIV prevents people from getting tested and starting ARVs and jeopardizes adherence.

We welcome the increasing focus on public health rather than on punitive approaches. It is public health that is based on effective and humane interventions that are essential when comparing resources spent and results obtained.

Where to go for help for people living with HIV?
The Republic has organizations that provide support and advice to people living with HIV in difficult circumstances. These are SPIN-plus and the Network of Women Living with HIV in Tajikistan.

As for legal assistance, in Tajikistan there is a hotline of NGO “Center for Human Rights”, +992933557755.

“In just 4 months (October 2019-January 2020), 60 people (21 men, 36 women and 3 transgender people) contacted the hotline,” said Larisa Alexandrova.
Any person in a difficult situation due to HIV can contact the hotline and receive free legal advice and / or support for representation in courts, state agencies.

Lawyers who have not previously dealt with such cases, recommended international human rights activist Mikhail Golichenko, should consult with experienced lawyers in advance. Special organizations, such as the Center for Human Rights in Tajikistan, can be contacted to explain what to do in different situations.

You can’t try to do something on your own, better involve allies and organize protection. Lawyers must be clear about what evidence they need to gather in order to do so.

UNAIDS states unequivocally that there is no evidence to support the effectiveness of criminal law enforcement for HIV transmission in preventing HIV transmission. Rather, it undermines public health goals and the protection of human rights. UNAIDS commends country initiatives to review such legislation and repeal it.

Как спасти 14 тысяч таджиков от угрозы тюрьмы, а страну – от эпидемии?

УГОЛОВНЫЙ КОДЕКС РТ КАЖДОГО ВИЧ-ПОЗИТИВНОГО ГРАЖДАНИНА ПОТЕНЦИАЛЬНО РАССМАТРИВАЕТ КАК ПРЕСТУПНИКА, А НЕ ЧЕЛОВЕКА, НУЖДАЮЩЕГОСЯ В ПОДДЕРЖКЕ ГОСУДАРСТВА

Почему уголовные меры против таджиков, живущих с ВИЧ, способствуют стремительному росту эпидемии ВИЧ/СПИДа в стране? Какая практика у соседних стран? И, главное, как гражданам защищать свои права, разбирался корреспондент «Азия-Плюс».

Подход в борьбе с ВИЧ в Таджикистане, когда за дело берутся правоохранители, а не врачи, может дать обратный эффект. Так считают таджикские и международные правозащитники, а также комитет ООН по ликвидации дискриминации в отношении женщин.

По информации Минздрава РТ в стране проживает более 14 тыс. людей с вирусом иммунодефицита человека (ВИЧ), почти половина которых, даже не подозревает о своём ВИЧ-положительном статусе, и их число продолжает расти.

9 ноября 2018 года, комитет ООН по ликвидации дискриминации в отношении женщин (CEDOW) опубликовал рекомендации в адрес Таджикистана, отметив наличие ряда барьеров в доступе к здравоохранению, которые приводят к стремительному распространению ВИЧ.

Так, в пункте 40 содержится рекомендация по декриминализации ВИЧ – полной отмене статьи 125 Уголовного кодекса РТ. В том же 2018 году было возбуждено 33 уголовных дела в отношении 26 ВИЧ-позитивных людей, а в 2019 году к этому числу прибавилось еще, как минимум, 6 дел. Эти данные озвучил прокурор Худжанда Хабибулло Вохидов на координационном совете правоохранительных органов, 2 мая прошлого года.

С начала 2020 года правозащитники ОО «Центра по правам человека» и ReACT зарегистрировали уже 2 таких кейса.

125-я статья уже не работает

По словам менеджера программ по стигме и дискриминации Глобальной Сети ЛЖВ (GNP+) Александры Волгиной, 125 статья в Уголовном кодексе Таджикистана взята из советского законодательства и отражает реальность тех лет, когда еще не было лекарств от этого заболевания. ВИЧ быстро прогрессировал в состояние СПИДа, что являлось фактически смертельным приговором.

Первая часть 125-й статьи УК РТ говорит о заражении другого лица венерической болезнью лицом, знавшим о наличии у него этой болезни. Это притом, что антиретровирусная терапия (АРВ, – ред.) полностью устраняет риск передачи вируса иммунодефицита и делает человека с ВИЧ совершенно безопасным в плане передачи вируса.

Важно отметить, что эта АРВ терапия работает только против ВИЧ и не защищает от других инфекций, передающихся половым путем. Поэтому важно не забывать и об использовании презерватива.

«Сама по себе криминализация — клеймо, которое общество закрепляет в законе или в практике против людей, живущих с ВИЧ. Они рассматриваются как преступники, по умолчанию», – говорит Михаил Голиченко, адвокат, международный аналитик по правам человека Канадской правовой сети.

Возлагая всю ответственность за профилактику передачивируса иммунодефицита на людей, живущих с ВИЧ, статья о криминализации ВИЧ, по сути, дает обществу ложную надежду, вводит общество в заблуждение, когда люди думают, что «если ВИЧ криминализовано, то меня в любом случае предупредят», – отмечает адвокат.

В Таджикистане диагноз «ВИЧ» воспринимается как угроза. Это большая проблема, которая при существующей мировой научной базе просто бессмысленна.

Принцип “Неопределяемый=Непередаваемый” (если человек с ВИЧ получает лечение, у него в крови вирус снижается до минимума и тогда он не может передать ВИЧ половому партнеру) – давно доказанный научный факт и переломный момент в истории борьбы с ВИЧ/СПИДом.

Так, сегодня ВИЧ-положительные женщины, принимая лечение, рожают здоровых детей, люди с ВИЧ живут так же долго, как и без него. Семьи, где партнеры с разными ВИЧ статусами, не передавая болезнь друг другу, живут счастливо, и это происходит не где-то далеко, а в соседних странах: России, Кыргызстане, Казахстане и Узбекистане.

Женщины в западне

В Таджикистане по 125-й статье Уголовного кодекса РТ в основном привлекаются женщины. Эксперт по правам человека в аспекте доступа к профилактике и лечению ВИЧ ОО «Центра по правам человека» Лариса Александрова, говорит о стереотипе, присущем таджикскому обществу – о том, что заражают ВИЧ-инфекцией в основном секс-работницы.

На самом деле, по данным Национальной программы по противодействию эпидемии ВИЧ на 2017-2020 гг. распространенность ВИЧ среди секс-работниц – 3,5%.

Гетеросексуальные половые контакты – основной путь передачи ВИЧ в Таджикистане. В ряде регионов доля таких случаев достигает 70%.

Лариса Александрова поделилась реальными примерами нарушения прав женщин из практики адвокатов ОО «Центра по правам человека» Зебо Касымовой и Дилафруз Самадовой.

В целях защиты персональных данных, имена не указываются.

Наказание без преступления

«41-летняя жительница Хатлонской области ранее была судима по ч.2 статьи 125 УК РТ и приговором суда в 2018 году была осуждена на год лишения свободы. Постановлением суда через 9 месяцев освобождена досрочно в связи с плохим состоянием здоровья.

Но уже 2019 году женщина была повторно задержана. В отношении неё было возбуждено уголовное делопо тем же эпизодам, что и в 2018 году. Ни у одного из проходящих по делу половых партнёров не было выявлено ВИЧ, ни в 2018, ни в 2019году. Однако суд повторно признал женщину виновной, только уже по ч.1 статьи 125 УК РТ ей назначали 1 год лишения свободы. Суд на основании статьи 71 УК РТ условно не применил наказание, а дал ей испытательный срок для исправления, но в условиях контроля за её поведением».

Мнение экспертов: Анализ данного кейса, по словам адвоката, выявил низкий уровень профессионализма сотрудников правоохранительных органов, как по знанию особенностей ВИЧ, так и по судопроизводству. Повторное возбуждение делапо одному и тому же эпизоду, по тем же фактам уголовного дела против человека – прямое нарушение Конституции РТ и Международного пакта о гражданских и политических правах, уверяет эксперт.

–  Женщина первый раз отсидела 9 месяцев, причём по части 2 ст.125 УК РТ. Изначально была применена неправильная норма, так как часть 2 говорит о заражении ВИЧ. Но ни у одного из половых партнеров не был обнаружен ВИЧ. Соответственно должна была быть часть 1, — резюмирует Лариса Александрова.

Суд без потерпевшего

«Жительница г. Худжанд, употреблявшая инъекционные наркотики, работала волонтёром в НПО. Уголовное дело было возбуждено 11 октября 2018 года по ч.1. статьи 125 УК РТ. Потерпевшим по этому делу проходил мужчина. В ходе судебного процесса мужчина заявил, что он не согласен с тем, что его признали потерпевшим.

После возбуждения уголовного дела на основании заключения комиссионной экспертизы, было выявлено, что у мужчины отсутствует ВИЧ. На суде были заданы вопросы со стороны адвоката: «Предлагала ли подзащитная использовать презерватив при половом контакте?», на что мужчина ответил:

«Да, но я отказался. Я знаю, что у неё есть это заболевание, но, тем не менее, я люблю её, буду с ней жить, не имею к ней претензии и требований».

Законодательство Республики Таджикистан относит статью 125 часть 1 к делам частно-публичного обвинения, это означает, что эти дела возбуждаются по заявлению лица, пострадавшего от преступления, но в случае примирения его с обвиняемым производство по ним не подлежит прекращению. Несмотря на это, в отношении подсудимой был вынесен приговор – 1 год 2 месяца лишения свободы по ч.1 статьи 125 УК РТ».

Мнение экспертов: В этом случае, человека посадили, несмотря на то, что у неё были хорошие медицинские данные. К тому же о наличии у неё ВИЧ половой партнёр знал. Он даже не подавал никакого заявления. В таком случае дело должно было быть возбуждено, как минимум прокурором, а не системой внутренних дел. И кто сообщил об этом кейсе тоже неизвестно. В данном кейсе был нарушен и порядок возбуждения уголовного, дела и процессуальные права подсудимой женщины.

Следователь даже не дал ознакомиться с обвинительным заключением ни адвокату, ни самой подследственной. Обвинительное заключение было представлено адвокату, которая защищала женщину впервые дни по запросу органов милиции. В впоследствии подсудимаяот его защиты отказалась, и ей был представлен адвокат от ОО «Центр по правам человека». Адвокатом была подана жалоба на следователя в прокуратуру, но прокуратура не нашла никаких нарушений.

Судья не обратил внимания на все эти нарушения и вынес приговор, комментирует эксперт Александрова. Дело было обжаловано и в кассационную, и надзорную инстанции, но и там судьи посчитали, что нарушений нет.

Что значит «заведомо» – с юридической точки зрения объяснил международный эксперт Михаил Голиченко.

Часть 1 ст. 125 УК Таджикистана предусматривает ответственность за заведомоепоставление другого лица в опасность заражения вирусом иммунодефицита человека. В этой статье не предусмотрен такой признак как «заражение». То есть самой постановки в опасность заражения достаточно.

Слово «заведомо», толкует юрист Михаил Голиченко, означает, что человек заранее знал о наличии у него ВИЧ. Поставление в опасность, без наступления самого заражения, означает, что состав преступления формальный.

Для сравнения, в УК РТ также есть действия с материальным составом, где обязательным признаком выступают общественно-опасные последствия. Например, убийство – материальный состав, так как для оконченного состава необходимо наступление такого общественно-опасного последствия, как смерть человека.

Для преступлений с формальным составом единственной формой вины может быть только прямой умысел. Если человек осознавал общественную опасность своего действия (бездействия) и желал совершить именно эти действия. Если в деле есть признаки того, что, например, половой акт без презерватива был по причине страха насилия со стороны партнёра, по просьбе самого партнёра. Либо по другим причинам, которые дают основания для вывода об отсутствии желания поставить в опасность заражения, то привлечь к ответственности по части 1 ст. 125 УК РТ нельзя. Отсутствует необходимый элемент состава преступления – вина в форме прямого умысла.

«Лечить, нельзя наказывать»: рекомендации экспертов для Таджикистана

Адвокат Михаил Голиченко и международный эксперт по правам человека Александра Волгина уверены, что статья 125 не нужна, потому что умышленная передача ВИЧ –редчайшая вероятность. К тому же эта статьяохваченадругой статьей УК Таджикистана – «О причинении вреда здоровью». Они убеждены, все части 1,2,3 ст. 125 УК РТ давно утратили свою актуальность.

Само по себе наличие специальной ответственности за заражение ВИЧ является закрепленной в уголовном законе стигмой по отношению к людям, живущим с ВИЧ. И в этом смысле ст. 125 УК РТ играет негативную роль в вопросах профилактики ВИЧ-инфекции. В этой связи лучшим вариантом была бы отмена данной нормы полностью. Для редких случаев умышленного заражения ВИЧ возможно применении ст. 111 УК РТ об ответственности за умышленное причинение вреда здоровью средней тяжести.

По мнению Татьяны Дешко, директора международных программ в Альянсе общественного здоровья, в Таджикистане необходимо дать медицинские вопросы под контроль медиков.

– Давайте посмотрим на результаты «работы» этой статьи уголовного кодекса. В Таджикистане в 2019 году проведено более миллиона тестов на ВИЧ-инфекцию, а выявлено чуть больше 1 тыс новых случаев ВИЧ – это очень мало. Люди, которые имеют реальный риск и ВИЧ-инфекцию, просто боятся тестироваться. Неудивительно и так происходит везде.

“Представьте, что за короновирус вас бы изолировали не дома или в больнице, а в изоляторе и тюрьме. Пошли бы вы тогда тестироваться? Все-таки медицинскими вопросами должны заниматься врачи, а не полиция, – тогда все станет на свои места и станем здоровее”, – говорит Татьяна Дешко.

Так, Лариса Александрова рассказала, что на телефон горячей линии ОО «Центр по правам человека» начали обращаться также и сотрудники судебно-медицинской экспертизы по поводу изменения пола и правоустанавливающих документов по трансгендерным людям. Такое сотрудничество начало складываться после проведения тренингов для некоторых судей: они начинают перенаправлять людей, живущих с ВИЧ, которые обвиняются по ст.125 УК РТ, за правовой помощью. Это говорит о том, что информирование и научно доказанные аргументы очевидны, а также о том, что представители власти, получая больше информации готовы всячески способствовать разумному сопровождению прав человека. 

«Глобальный фонд подтверждает свою готовность продолжать поддержку деятельности Таджикистана в борьбе со СПИДом в применении эффективных мер ответа на ВИЧ, основанных на научно-доказанных данных, – сказала «Азия-Плюс» Александрина Иовита, советник по правам человека, Глобального фонда для борьбы со СПИДом, туберкулёзом и малярией. 

– Фокус этой деятельности направлен на предотвращение новых случаев, расширение охвата АРВ и снижение барьеров, связанных с нарушением прав человека, с которыми сталкиваются представители ключевых групп в контексте получения доступа к услугам. Фактические данные и рекомендации от технических партнеров, таких, как ЮНЭЙДС и ПРООН, указывают на то, что чрезмерно широкая криминализация ВИЧ не позволяет людям проходить тестирование и начинать АРВ, а также ставит под угрозу приверженность.

Мы приветствуем все больший фокус на общественном здравоохранении, а не на карательных подходах. Именно общественное здравоохранение основано на эффективных и гуманных мерах, представляющих большую значимость при сравнении затраченных ресурсов и полученных результатов».

Куда обратиться за помощью людям, живущим с ВИЧ?

В республике работают организации, которые оказывают поддержку и консультирование людям, живущим с ВИЧ, оказавшимся в сложных жизненных обстоятельствах. Это СПИН-плюс и Сеть женщин, живущих с ВИЧ в Таджикистане.

Что касается правовой помощи, в Таджикистане работает горячая линия ОО «Центра по правам человека», +992933557755

«Только за 4 месяца (октябрь 2019-январь 2020) на горячую линию обратились 60 человек (21 мужчина, 36 женщин и 3 трансгендерных человека)», – говорит Лариса Александрова.

Любой человек, оказавшись в сложной ситуации, в связи с ВИЧ, может обратиться на горячую линию и получить бесплатно правовую консультацию и/или поддержку по представительству в судах, государственных органах.

Адвокаты, которые ранее не занимались подобными делами, рекомендует международный правозащитник Михаил Голиченко, должны заранее проконсультироваться с опытными юристами. Можно обратиться в специальные организации – такие как ОО «Центр по правам человека в Таджикистане», чтобы им могли разъяснить, как быть в разных ситуациях.

Нельзя пытаться что-то делать своими силами, лучше привлечь союзников и организовать защиту. Адвокат должен четко знать, какие доказательства для этого необходимо собрать.

ЮНЭЙДС однозначно заявляет, что нет никаких данных, подтверждающих эффективность применения уголовного законодательства в отношении передачи ВИЧ – для предотвращения передачи ВИЧ. Наоборот, такое применение подрывает цели общественного здравоохранения и защиту прав человека. ЮНЭЙДС высоко оценивает инициативы стран по пересмотру такого законодательства и его отмене.