Ukraine: The Ukrainian Helsinki Human Rights Union raises awareness on the need to decriminalise HIV-status

Valeria Rachynska: “We must finally stop the witch-hunting and decriminalize HIV-status”

On 18 October, 2019 in the premises of IA “Glavkom” UHHRU conducted the press-conference on the topic: “Why Ukraine must decriminalize HIV-status”. The main topics of the presentations included: raising awareness on actual HIV statistics in Ukraine, issues of overcoming stigma in relation to people living with HIV (PL HIV), and position of the lawyers regarding legal criminalization of HIV status (article 130 CC of Ukraine).

Oleksandr Pavlichenko, UHHRU Executive Director: “Despite the fact that recently we achieved significant success in treating HIV in Ukraine, obsolete legislative provisions are still in force – article 130 of the CC. This article treats all Ukrainian citizens with HIV+ status as potential criminals, envisages punishment of up to 3 years of imprisonment and gave base for dozens of court decisions each year. From the legal point of view of the European Convention on Human Rights the formulation incorporated in this article is vague, it cannot be considered as a law, and needs to be amended”.

Olena Stryzhak, Chairman of the Board of CO “Positive Women”: “Our organization for 5 years already advocates the amendments to the legislation and 3 years ago we submitted the package of amendments in which we insisted on decriminalization of HIV-status. All years of our work, both as service organization and as organization protecting human rights, prove that HIV stigma and criminalization lead to the situation where people are afraid of disclosing the status, which further hinders effective treatment and socialization of PL HIV”.

Valeriya Rachynska, Director of the Department for Work with the Regions, “All-Ukrainian Network of People Living with HIV/AIDS”: “First of all, I would like to mention that in addition to legislative problems there is one more problem – general indifference of mass media to highlighting the situation with HIV/AIDS. If that was not the case everybody would know that in July 2018 there was an official WHO Statement stressing that people having HIV status, who undergo antiretroviral therapy and have minimal viral load have practically no chances for HIV sexual transmission. The risk is equal to zero. In Ukraine, 92% of PL HIV, which take ART, have minimal viral load. It is the obsolete legislative provision that additionally stigmatize them and assaults their dignity. We must finally stop the witch-hunting and decriminalize HIV-status”.

Svitlana Moroz, Chairman of the Board of Eurasian Women’s Network on AIDS: “Our organization pays special attention to the problem of HIV-status criminalization. We are monitoring 12 countries in the region and have information of absolutely outrageous cases related to PL HIV criminalization. For example, when raped women is afraid to apply to court against the rapist, because she has positive status. Current legislation not only makes criminals out of HIV+ people, it shifts the blame for getting infected exclusively on PL HIV and creates wrong perception of the citizens’ protection. Following this logic, the state shall prohibit discordant couples and HIV+ women giving birth. Besides, Ukrainian criminal legislation contradicts the Law on AIDS where a lot is said about counteracting PL HIV stigmatization. Article 130 of the CC of Ukraine fosters stigma, hinders access to treatment, and in general does not takes into account scientific achievements in fighting HIV/AIDS during the recent 20 years”.

Justification of the legal position of CO “Positive Women” regarding immediate HIV status decriminalization can be found at the link.

Ukrainian Helsinki Human Rights Union implements the project the project “Development of the legal network for protection of the people living with HIV/AIDS, representatives of key PLHIV communities and persons ill with TB” with the financial support of the Charitable organization “All-Ukrainian Network of the People Living with HIV/AIDS” in the framework of implementation of the project “Releasing the Burden of TB and HIV infection through creation of the open access to timely and quality diagnostics and treatment of the TB and its resistant forms, expanding evidence based prevention, diagnostic and treatment of HIV infection, and creation of stable and sustainable health protection systems”, which is implemented with the financial support of the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, TB and Malaria.

US: Florida HIV Criminal laws undermine public health goals and must be modernised

HIV in Florida is on the rise. Here’s how we can change that.

The state has mishandled the epidemic in the past, but lawmakers can get it right now

By Jennie Smith-Camejo, Kamaria Laffrey, Christine Hanavan and Alejandro Acosta

Published Sep. 19

Last week, Floridians learned that as governor, Rick Scott rejected $70 million in federal funding to fight the state’s HIV epidemic between 2013-2017. During those years, New York invested heavily in testing, treatment, and services for people living with HIV—and reduced its rate of new diagnoses by 30 percent. Of the 10 states with the most annual HIV diagnoses, only Florida saw an increase—a whopping 11 percent. 23,413 Floridians have had their lives altered as a result.

Florida’s new governor, Ron DeSantis, just announced that his administration will lead a “robust program” to reduce HIV and AIDS in the state. HIV advocates will work with him to fulfill this promise.

Yet ending the epidemic in Florida requires more than promises. Access to care and services for people living with HIV is key. Modern antiretroviral treatments reduce the amount of the virus in the body so low tests can’t detect it. After six months, the person cannot transmit HIV to their sexual partners as long as they stay undetectable. The CDC confirmed that maintaining an undetectable viral load is 100% effective at preventing HIV transmission, even without condoms. Ensuring every person with HIV is diagnosed and is linked to care and support to stay in care (stable housing, mental healthcare, transportation for medical appointments, etc.) keeps the person with HIV healthy and prevents transmission.

Further, Florida legislators must align our laws with modern science. Currently, outdated laws criminalize people with HIV for consensual sex. People can be convicted of a felony even when no transmission occurred or was possible. One accusation can ruin a life.

These laws are different from other criminal laws. The burden of proof lies on the person living with HIV to prove they told their partner. But intimate conversations rarely take place in writing. And no intent to “harm”–or actual harm–is required for conviction. Disputes about facts routinely work in favor of the accuser, ruining lives. Headlines about such cases further stigmatize HIV, driving people living with HIV back underground, afraid to disclose or sometimes even to get medication because of the legal and social consequences of criminalization and stigma.

These laws undermine the public health goals of testing and treatment. The National HIV/AIDS Strategy recommended that state governments review their criminal laws for this very reason. And a 2017 study authored by CDC staff found that laws criminalizing HIV have “no detectable prevention effect.”

Florida government can right this wrong by funding care and services and by modernizing the state’s criminalization laws. The Florida HIV Justice Coalition, a group of people living with HIV and organizations working with communities affected by HIV, formed to help legislators align our laws with science and public health.

Together, we can make Florida a state where no one is afraid to seek HIV testing or care.

Jennie Smith-Camejo, of Miami, is communications director for Positive Women’s Network, USA. Kamaria Laffrey, of Winter Haven, is the Southern engagement community coordinator for the Sero Project. Christine Hanavan, MSW, of Orlando, is a community organizer for Sex Workers Outreach Project Behind Bars. Alejandro Acosta, of Fort Lauderdale, is the HIV advocacy manager for Equality Florida.

Uganda: HIV law deters communities from seeking HIV services and should be reformed

Kaleba scolds Parliament: The AIDS law is poisonous

“Whereas the law contains important commitments by government for the HIV and AIDS response in Uganda, there are some “poisonous” clauses that could deter all the benefits realised in the fight against the scourge,” she said.

HEALTH HIV/AIDS

The founder of The Aids Support Organization (TASO), Noerine Kaleeba, has castigated members of parliament, saying they approved the AIDS law which is awash with numerous contentious clauses.

In 2014, Parliament endorsed the HIV and AIDS Prevention law, which came into effect the same year on July 31, when President Yoweri Museveni assented to it. The law seeks to provide for a legal framework geared towards the prevention and control of HIV.

Kaleeba said the contentious clauses (41 and 43) of the law provide for prosecution on grounds of attempted and intentional transmission of HIV, respectively. Among the provisions of the piece of legislation is criminal penalty for risk and intentional transmission of the virus.

The law requires mandatory disclosure of one’s HIV status, failure of which would be regarded as “criminal”, and attempting to or, intentionally transmitting the virus. Failure to use a condom where one knows their HIV status would constitute a criminal offence, making them liable for prosecution.

Speaking during the 29th Centre General Meeting (CGM) of TASO Mulago last week, Kaleeba regretted that these provisions in the law do not only stigmatise and discriminate against people living with HIV but also deter communities from seeking HIV services such as HIV Testing and subsequently HIV treatment.

TASO founder Noeline Kaleebu together with another founder Peter Ssebanja take to the flow during the 29 AGM for TASO Mulago

She said that the clauses have fueled domestic violence in homes since the couples each blame one another for intentionally transmitting the virus. She said it is naïve to think that the person who tests first is the one who infects the other, it could be the other way round.

“Honestly, how can it be proven that indeed the HIV of the accuser was got from the accused? There is fear that public knowledge of one’s HIV positive status would be used against them due to personal differences,” she says.

She argued that this will ultimately discourage people from testing to know their status fearing that if found positive, their status could be used against them in courts of law at any point in time. It should thus be noted that one who does not know their status cannot be held liable under this law.

“We should avoid creating scenarios where people living with HIV/AIDS are looked at as criminals or potential criminals,” She says. Adding, “People will inadvertently live with the virus without accessing treatment and by the time they get to know their status it will be too late.”

Kaleeba says that both members of the previous parliament and the President (who signed the law) acted out of ignorance, and therefore made a mistake. She prays that the 10th parliament doesn’t have to keep the error, and this is urgent.

She also hailed the appointment of Winnie Byanyima as the new executive director of UNAIDS, saying it has come at the right time as we are closing the chapter of HIV/AIDS. She said Byanyima is an exceptionally good manager, and her appointment will elevate our country.

“She will definitely give a mirage to Uganda even for those who didn’t know Uganda, will come to know the country, whether they like it or not. The world will say the new UNAIDS ED comes from Uganda, and that way our reputation will be elevated. People living with HIV, therefore, need to double their efforts especially on issues of taking their medication,” she said.

“Strict adherence to treatment is where the war is. When you religiously adhere to your medication, your viral load becomes undetectable, meaning you will not transmit to others. Let us be exemplary and merit Bwanyima’s confidence.”

Responding to Kaleeba’s concerns, the guest of honour, Florence Nambozo, who is also woman MP for Sironko and chairperson HIV/AIDS committee, assured over 800 people who turned up for the CGM that she will talk to her fellow members of parliament to make sure that the law is amended.

She said Uganda is making good progress in the HIV fight and urged people living with HIV to stick to treatment since the ARVs are available and free in all government health facilities.

The Centre Program Manager TASO Mulago, Godfry Mafabi revealed that by end of July TASO Mulago had recorded a cumulative total of 7754 compared to last years’ 1145 in care against a target of 8371 to be achieved by September 2019.

Mafabi said that since the last AGM 918 clients were initiated on ART, of these 23 were children and 139 adolescents, and 756 were adults compared to 663 who were started on ART between 17 August- July 18. The suppression rate is currently at 97% surpassing the new national target of 95% target.

However, the institution is still faced with challenges of funding since the time the donors pulled out. The number of staff was also reduced at the facility to 27 from 75, which is a big setback. We are using expert clients to handle new clients, he said.

Canada: Further reform is needed to redress the harms HIV criminalization brings to the lives of women living with HIV

Recommendations on changes to HIV criminalization don’t go far enough

Earlier this summer, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights released a report on Canada’s approach to criminalizing those who don’t disclose that they’re living with HIV to sexual partners.

If the Standing Committee’s recommendations are adopted, they could diminish the harms experienced by women living with HIV under Canada’s current approach to criminalization.

But further consideration and consultation are required in order to fully address the harms that the law introduces to the lives of women living with HIV.

The Supreme Court of Canada articulated the current legal approach in 2012. In so doing, the court interpreted consent and fraud provisions of Canada’s sexual assault laws and ruled that people diagnosed with HIV must disclose their status to sexual partners before engaging in sexual acts that pose a “realistic possibility of transmission.”

The court also stated that there is no legal obligation to disclose prior to sex if a condom is used and the person living with HIV has a consistently low measure of HIV in their blood. This legal understanding of a “realistic possibility” contradicts current scientific knowledge that just one of these conditions is sufficient to eliminate transmission risk.

Scientific evidence endorsed by the federal government demonstrates that an undetectable viral load eliminates the risk of sexual transmission of HIV, regardless of condom use. Similarly, there is a negligible risk of transmission when condoms are used properly, no matter an individual’s viral load.

Today, in addition to being inconsistent with current scientific evidence, HIV nondisclosure prosecutions are widely seen as unjust as they can result in harsh sentences for actions that result in little or no harm.

Canadian prosecutors and courts apply the criminal offences of sexual assault and aggravated sexual assault to prosecute cases of HIV nondisclosure. The latter — one of the most serious offences in Canada’s Criminal Code — carries the possibility of a lifetime sentence and mandatory registration as a sexual offender.

Experts discuss the misuse of sexual assault law in prosecuting cases of HIV nondisclosure in Canada. From Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network & Goldelox Productions.

Women living with HIV & the law

“The law is a bigger risk to us than HIV.” Sophie

The criminalization of HIV nondisclosure was purportedly intended to protect women while reducing HIV transmission risk by promoting disclosure and safer sex practices. Instead, research indicates that punitive approaches have the opposite effects, many of them significantly harmful.

As health scientists at Simon Fraser University, we work alongside experts on two studies: the Canadian HIV and Women’s Sexual and Reproductive Health Study (CHIWOS), with researchers also from the University of Toronto, McGill University, University of Manitoba, University of Saskatchewan and McMaster University; and the Women, ART and the Criminalization of HIV (WATCH) study with health partners based at McMaster University.

Findings from these studies indicate that criminalization reinforces socially dominant power dynamics, stigma, marginalization and fear experienced by women living with HIV. Specifically, the current legal requirements ignore the dangers women face in both negotiating the use of condoms and status disclosure due to power inequities, particularly in dependent, violent and non-consensual relationships.

À lire aussi : Why a fulfilling sexual life with HIV matters

“I was raped by three [people …] And if I had told [them] I was HIV positive, I would have been dead. I know it. So where does that fit in the picture?” Julie

Women living with HIV who don’t disclose their status when they are sexually assaulted may themselves be convicted of a sexual offence.

Not only does criminalization contradict scientific evidence around HIV transmission risk, it compromises women’s health-care engagement and deters HIV testing since those who do not know their status cannot be prosecuted. Yet access to HIV testing, treatment and support services is scientifically proven to decrease transmission risk.

Furthermore, women who aren’t prosecuted are still harmed by the law. For example, women who have experienced emotional and physical violence by abusive partners may face the threat of partners falsely reporting that the woman didn’t disclose her HIV status.

Living under the fear of being charged has significant consequences for women’s emotional, mental and physical well-being. This is particularly important given the high rates of physical and sexual violence experienced by women living with HIV in Canada.

“It seems like an impossible situation to prove your innocence.” Miranda

These findings were shared with the Standing Committee through expert testimony by members of CHIWOS and WATCH. Such contributions are integral in moving toward an approach to criminalization that considers the realities of people living with HIV.

Women living with HIV and others share their experiences and knowledge of the criminalization of HIV nondisclosure in Canada. From Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network & Goldelox Productions.

Recommendations could go further

The Standing Committee’s report makes recommendations in a positive direction, but the recommendations need to go further to reduce harms to women living with HIV.

Firstly, the committee recommends creating a new offence in the Criminal Code for nondisclosure of an infectious disease where transmission happens. This recommendation says prosecutions should never be pursued in cases where: an individual has an undetectable viral load; condoms were used; the sexual partner of a person living with HIV is taking pre-exposure prophylactics; or the sexual act carries a negligible risk of transmission (oral sex, for example).

This suggested requirement of a new offense where actual transmission occurs would minimize, though not fully eliminate, opportunities for the law to be used as a tool of violence against women.

Though the creation of a new offence would address the current problematic use of sexual assault laws, failing to consider the intent of not disclosing is significant. In 2008, the United Nations urged states to limit prosecution of HIV nondisclosure to extremely rare cases of actual and intentional transmission.

Heed women’s experiences

Without including the element of intent, the committee has not fully addressed the vulnerability of women who may unintentionally transmit HIV during their own sexual assault or an unprotected sexual encounter. Given the widespread violence experienced by women living with HIV in Canada, this is a substantial deficiency in the recommendations.

And, given the report’s recognition that criminalization has not achieved its public-health goal of reducing HIV transmission, transmission of any infectious disease should be addressed by public-health mechanisms rather than the law.

Secondly, the report recommends ensuring that the same conditions are applied cross-country to consider whether prosecutions should proceed in cases where people haven’t disclosed that they are living with HIV. This recommendation would address the disparities in prosecutions of HIV nondisclosure and reduce various harms to people living with HIV.

Finally, the report recommends a review of all past convictions for HIV nondisclosure and increased access to anonymous testing. These measures are significant in beginning to redress the harms introduced by the current legal approach.

But to fully do that, Canada must heed all the experiences of women living with HIV.

US: Charges of HIV exposure for spitting, despite absence of risks, prove that Georgia needs to modernise its HIV laws

HIV-positive man’s arrest for spitting called ‘plain and simple discrimination’

A 31-year-old man in Rome, Ga., was charged with exposing police officers to HIV after allegedly spitting on them, which HIV activists said highlights why the state needs to fix its HIV laws.

Authorities said JS was swearing at people and making obscene gestures near the intersection of Maple Road and Park Road on Aug. 25, according to the Marietta Daily Journal. S allegedly spat on officers after being apprehended by the Floyd County Police Department.

S was charged with criminal trespass, two misdemeanor counts of disorderly conduct, three misdemeanor counts of willful obstruction of police officers and three felony counts of assault on police officers by someone with HIV, according to the Floyd County Sheriff’s Office. He is being held without bond in the Floyd County Jail.

HIV cannot be transmitted by spitting, according to the Centers for Disease Control & Prevention. S’s arrest highlights why Georgia needs to modernize its HIV laws, according to Nina Martinez of the Georgia HIV Justice Coalition.

“In 2019, it’s not breaking news that saliva does not transmit HIV,” she told Project Q Atlanta. “And yet, the punishment for a person living with HIV who spits on a police officer is potentially 20 times greater than that for someone not living with HIV who commits the same offense. This is state-sanctioned discrimination, plain and simple.”

Malcolm Reid, another member of the Georgia HIV Justice Coalition, agreed with Martinez.

“Although we don’t know much about this specific case, we do know that there is no chance of HIV transmission through spit,” he said. “This proves once again that the laws in Georgia need to catch up to science. HIV is not a crime.”

Georgia is one of some three-dozen states that criminalize a lack of HIV disclosure. Activists and lawmakers have tried for years to modernize state law by decriminalizing HIV.

A Republican lawmaker introduced an HIV decriminalization bill on the final day of this year’s legislative session. It will be back in the 2020 session in January.

An Athens man was arrested in July after allegedly having sex with a woman without informing her he had HIV. He was charged with reckless conduct by a person with HIV. He remains in Athens-Clarke County Jail nearly two months later on a $3,000 bond, according to the Clarke County Sheriff’s Office.

A gay Atlanta man was arrested for HIV exposure in South Carolina in 2015. He claimed he disclosed his status before having sex with the alleged victim. The charges were later dropped.

Uganda: Recent case of woman, unjustly jailed for allegedly injecting a baby with HIV, highlights the need to act against HIV criminalisation

Woman Who was Wrongfully Jailed for Premeditated HIV Infection Speaks Out

“I spent two weeks in custody asking [to be released on bond], but they could not even bond me out, saying I was a non-resident. When we went to court, I asked for bail, and they refused. They refused to give me bail until they convicted me.”

By Kampala Post Reporter

On the evening of August 29, 2019, Sylvia Komuhangi walked out of the Gulu High Court premises accompanied by a female prisons security official. She had a smile plastered on her face. It was not a beaming smile. It was a restrained smile, the kind of smile that projects more relief than joy.

The 32-year-old secondary school teacher, who was wrongfully sentenced to two years in jail for injecting a baby with HIV-infected blood, walked a 50-meter stretch to the parking lot area where her lawyer, Immaculate Owomugisha waited. Komuhangi and Owomugisha shook hands, hugged and clasped their hands around each other’s waist for a while. The journalists present at court took pictures of the two, and then Owomugisha stepped back to let Komuhangi share her thoughts with the media.

With half a dozen video cameras and audio recorders in position, Komuhangi responded to the first question asking how it felt to regain her freedom after eight months in Kitgum Central prison, 805 kilometers away from her home in Rukungiri.

“I feel so happy,” she said. “It was so difficult.”

A Friendly Visit Gone Wrong

On December 27, 2018, Komuhangi was arrested and charged at Kitgum Magistrate’s Court with the offence of committing a “negligent act likely to spread disease contrary to Section 171 of the Penal Code Act of the Republic of Uganda.”

During her trial, at the Magistrate’s Court, the prosecution stated that at about 9 P.M. on December 26, 2018, Komuhangi carried the alleged victim away from her babysitter to the bedroom and then returned later, with the baby crying.

The prosecution continued that when the mother, Eunice Lakot, examined her baby, she found swellings in both armpits. She took the baby to Kitgum hospital for diagnosis, where doctors reportedly confirmed that the swellings were caused by injections. Consequently, a medical professional tested Komuhangi for HIV, and she was found positive. Next, the child was given Post-exposure Prophylaxis (PEP), an antiretroviral medication that prevents infection to anyone exposed to HIV during the first ninety-six hours. Subsequently, Komuhangi was arrested.

After regaining her freedom, Komuhangi narrated that she had traveled to Uganda’s northern region from the Kampala for a tour in late December 2018, and spent several nights at a friend’s house in Kitgum Town. After a visit to the Kidepo Valley National Park, she returned to Kitgum Town to find her friend’s home surrounded by local authorities. “We were arrested there and then,” she narrates.

The conviction was handed out by the Chief Magistrate of Kitgum, Hussein Nasur Ntalo, on Thursday, July 4th. On Komuhangi’s release, Lakot, the mother of the baby, shared that the most recent results showed that her baby is HIV negative. Lakot, nevertheless, said she was not happy with the High Court’s ruling, but the baby’s maternal grandmother, Rose Oryem, said they would not challenge the court’s decision.

Komuhangi’s story was covered by leading media houses in the country, including the Daily Monitor, the country’s leading independent media house. It caused a public uproar in a country whose laws make it a crime to “willfully and intentionally” transmit HIV and also give the legal right to medical staff to disclose a patient’s HIV status to others without his or her consent.

In fact, Komuhangi is not the first convict as a result of those laws. In 2014, a 64-year-old nurse in Kampala, Rosemary Namubiru, was accused of injecting a toddler with her HIV-positive blood in the process of administering treatment. Namubiru was put on trial amid pressure from several local and international organisations, including the Global Commission on HIV and the Law, who castigated the quality of the media reporting in the immediate aftermath of her arrest.

“The media engaged in unabashed and unverified sensationalism. Rosemary was branded a ‘killer,’ guilty of maliciously and intentionally attempting to transmit her own HIV infection to a child,” said the Commission’s statement.

“Subsequent to those allegations, the baseless rumour-mongering escalated: various news reports branded Rosemary a fiendish serial offender; a nurse who was mentally ill; a nurse without credentials…. Sadly, we’re convinced that the charge was originally laid because of the media frenzy,” added the statement.

Taking Action Against HIV Criminalization

When Komuhangi’s case hit the media headlines, it took a similar tone to that of Namubiru. As a result, it caught the eye of the Uganda Network on Ethics, Law and HIV/AIDS (UGANET), a non-governmental organisation whose goal is to advocate for the development and strengthening of an appropriate policy, legal human rights and ethical response to HIV/AIDS in Uganda.

Owomugisha, who is the UGANET head of advocacy and strategic litigation, says cases that involve HIV are not subjected to sufficient rigor, with sentiments often carrying the day at the expense of proper investigation, prosecution, and objectivity in court.

“Most convictions are based on unfair, inaccurate and overblown facts,” she says. “The media usually joins to hype up stories [and] this sensationalism crowds out good judgment, resulting in a miscarriage of justice.” Speaking particularly about Komuhangi’s case, Owomugisha said the media continued a pattern of HIV criminalization by condemning the suspect even before the initial trial.

“Several media houses were set on the loose name-calling such as “murderer and killer.” The media buzz was everywhere, including on the radio airwaves for days. This undressed Komuhangi of all dignity,” she said.

UGANET decided to offer legal representation to Komuhangi, resulting in a swift appeal against her conviction. Within two months from the first time the appeal was first lodged before the Gulu High Court, she had regained her freedom. Justice Stephen Mubiru, who handled the appeal, quashed the conviction, saying that forensic tests showed that DNA traces found on the cloth that Komuhangi used to wrap the baby belonged to her but did not contain any blood.

“I could not find any connection between her piece of cloth and the blood said to have been injected into the baby because the swelling found on the baby could have been a mere rash,” he added, according to a detailed report in the Daily Monitor newspaper.

Another of Komuhangi’s lawyers, Louis Odong, said the ruling sent a message to people who criminalize HIV victims not to engage in the practice while Owomugisha added that the court’s decisions had restored “dignity to Sylvia Komuhangi and many like her.”

“We commend the court decision for setting an example that if courts scratched below the surface news, they would realize HIV positive status alone does not equate to malicious intent,” she said.

The Executive Director of UGANET, Dora Kiconco Musinguzi, whose organisation works with 32 other HIV law and human rights groups, said the criminalization of people living with HIV, not only undermines the HIV response by compromising public health and human rights but that there is also no evidence of benefit from those laws.

“As a community of HIV actors, we remind the nation that we cannot end AIDS, or reach epidemic control with HIV criminalization coupled with heightened HIV discrimination. Human rights and dignity need to be accorded to all. We need to stop stigma and end HIV criminalization,” she stated.

Kiconco said that in light of court’s decision, the community of people living with HIV and organisations that UGANET works with recommend that the Constitutional Court should fast track the hearing of Petition No. 24 of 2016, through which their issues were presented to the country’s second-highest judicial organ for interpretation.

“More lives continue to be adversely affected by the HIV criminal law. Justice delayed is justice denied,” she added. Kiconco also called on Parliament to re-visit the HIV criminal laws with a view to law reform as “some of the laws are unfair, vague and will encourage trumped-up charges often.”

She said the law had been diverted from its original intent to create an environment where HIV is criminalized and where complications arise for persons living with HIV. The final appeal from Kiconco was directed to actors at all levels of the justice sector to increase rigor while handling HIV-related cases and to the media fraternity to exercise restraint while reporting on matters regarding the HIV criminal law.

“Our Constitution espouses a key principle – innocent until proven guilty. Abusing victims with names such as ‘monster and murderer’ is wrong. This jeopardizes their chance for a fair hearing,” she emphasized.

US: “People living with HIV are being prosecuted because the law is not keeping pace with science”

Living With H.I.V. Isn’t a Crime. Why Is the United States Treating It Like One?

States’ nondisclosure statutes, used to persecute marginalized populations, discourage testing and treatment.

By Chris Beyrer and Robert Suttle

Dr. Beyrer is an infectious disease epidemiologist. Mr. Suttle was convicted under Louisiana’s H.I.V. criminalization statute.

Michael Johnson, a former college athlete convicted in 2015 of not disclosing his H.I.V.-positive status to sexual partners, was released on parole from a Missouri prison last month. Mr. Johnson, who is gay and black, had maintained his innocence, and there was no proof that he had transmitted the virus. And yet that didn’t seem to matter in the court of public opinion, or in the court of law.

On Dec. 20, 2016, a Missouri appeals court ruled that Mr. Johnson’s trial had been “fundamentall y unfair.” H.I.V. nondisclosure is inherently difficult to prove yet seemingly easy to condemn, as shown time and again by judges and juries worldwide. Nowhere is this truer than in the United States, where people with H.I.V. are still being prosecuted under outdated or misapplied laws.

During the early years of the AIDS epidemic, an H.I.V. infection was tantamount to a death sentence. Through major advances in antiretroviral therapies, H.I.V. is now a manageable, chronic condition. A person whose infection is newly diagnosed can expect to live a near-normal life span, and most seropositive people will never progress to further AIDS-defining complications.

Today we also know much more about how difficult H.I.V. is to spread. When used correctly, condoms are highly effective means of prevention. Research has also shown that when people are treated with antiretroviral drugs so that their viral load cannot be detected by standard blood tests, the virus cannot be transmitted to sexual partners. This true of both heterosexual and male same-sex couples. Simply put, scientific evidence on actual harm and transmission does not support the singling out of people living with H.I.V. through the heavy hand of criminal law.

Mr. Johnson’s trial was rightly deemed unjust due to prosecutorial misconduct. But injustice remains deeply entrenched within the society that created the laws that criminalized his actions in the first place. At least 29 states, mostly in the Midwest and Deep South, have laws that make H.I.V. nondisclosure, exposure or transmission a crime.

These laws constitute one more layer of marginalization for those whom the criminal justice system already disproportionately prosecutes, convicts and harshly sentences: black people, trans women, migrants, people who sell sex, people who inject drugs and L.G.B.T.Q. youths. Such laws have not been shown to reduce H.I.V. transmission, but they do discourage those at risk from getting tested, which undermines public health rather than protects it.

The United States has the unfortunate distinction of being among the countries most aggressively prosecuting people living with H.I.V., after Russia and Belarus, according to a recent report by H.I.V. Justice Worldwide. In these places, people living with the virus could be just one disgruntled partner away from finding themselves in a courtroom.

In the United States there are thousands of cases where H.I.V.-specific charges were filed, or people faced heightened charges or punishments simply because they had the virus. We don’t know how many others have been threatened or blackmailed with criminal prosecution — the law becomes a weapon in abusive relationships — but those numbers are surely considerable. In almost all cases, this all-too-real risk is greater than any (highly unlikely) risk of actual H.I.V. transmission.

Prompted by concerns that the law was being applied contrary to scientific evidence, last summer a group of 20 H.I.V. scientists from around the world issued an expert consensus statement intended to assist experts involved in cases of alleged H.I.V. exposure, transmission or nondisclosure. They urged governments and people working in the justice system to ensure that the significant advances in H.I.V. science are taken into account in H.I.V.-related legal cases.

As the global scientific community continues to learn more about the disease and its transmission risks, lawmakers and criminal justice systems must similarly evolve their thinking to align with evidence, not fear. Scientists and clinical providers have obligations here, too. They should use their knowledge to support law reform efforts and provide expert testimony, using the consensus statement to educate and advocate change. No one should be forced to endure what Michael Johnson, and so many others living with H.I.V., have had to suffer.

Chris Beyrer is a professor in public health and human rights at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.

Robert Suttle is the assistant director of the Sero Project, which works to end unfair H.I.V.-related prosecutions.

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.

Ukraine: Svetlana Moroz, chair of the Eurasian Women’s AIDS Network, talks about the campaign to decriminalise HIV

HIV criminalisation creates an atmosphere of false effectiveness of the State

Google translation – Scroll down for article in Russian

Global changes in Ukrainian politics in the spring and summer of 2019 generated a new wave of “high expectations” of civil society in relation to changes in the field of legislation. As a result, along with calls to immediately punish all corrupt officials and restructure the domestic economy, the concept of “decriminalization” has come into use in the media over the past half year.

The most famous today are public campaigns to decriminalize medical cannabis and sex work. Both topics are considered “hot” from the point of view of journalists and there is no doubt that a serious public discussion in this area awaits us in the coming months.

Unfortunately, the topic of decriminalization of HIV today is far from the focus of media attention. The draft amendments to the Legislation in this area was submitted for discussion to state bodies by human rights defenders at the beginning of 2017, but either because of the catastrophic stigmatization of the topic, or because of the total disinterest of officials in solving the problem, it is still “under the cloth” .

About why article 130 part 1 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine is so bad, how much the idea of HIV transmission has changed over the past 30 years, and what do we need to do to remove the label “Potential Criminal” from tens of thousands of Ukrainians, we are talking with the chairman of the board of the Eurasian Women’s AIDS Network Svetlana Moroz.

Svetlana, I know that you have a lot of experience in protecting the rights of people living with HIV and you often represent Ukraine at international conferences on this topic. Is it true that the criminalization of HIV is a common place in the Criminal Codes of countries with different ideologies?

According to the HIV Justice Network and the Global Commission on HIV and Legislation, as of July 2018, 68 countries criminalize not reporting an HIV diagnosis, putting people at risk of transmission and transmitting HIV, and HIV-positive status can be considered aggravating and punishment of circumstance.

There is also information about prosecutions for HIV-positive status in 69 countries. The leaders in the number of criminal cases related to HIV are Belarus, Canada, Russia and the USA. Yes, in that order.

But, on the other hand, for the period 2012-2018. In several countries, such as Venezuela, Ghana, Greece, Honduras, Zimbabwe, Kenya, Malawi, Mongolia, Tajikistan, Switzerland, and two US states, laws criminalizing HIV transmission have been repealed. And this is also a fact.

What damage does HIV criminalization do in real life?

The criminalization of HIV is the application of existing criminal or other laws to people living with HIV (PLHIV) who establish responsibility for putting them at risk of infection and becoming infected with HIV.

Excessive use of laws that criminalize PLHIV is a public health problem, as it discredits evidence-based strategies for HIV prevention, treatment, care and support for PLHIV, and ignores scientific advances related to the risk of HIV transmission. Criminalization reinforces the stigma associated with HIV status and identifies HIV-positive people as potential criminals, which in turn further increases discrimination.

Thus, the fear of prosecution can deter many people living with HIV, in particular women and members of key groups (people who use drugs, sex workers, migrants, men who have sex with men and people from sex) from receiving the necessary treatment and support, prevents information disclosure and increases the vulnerability of people living with HIV to violence.

Much less commonly discussed is how these laws affect healthcare providers. When a criminal trial was conducted in the United States over an HIV-positive patient, his doctor was called as a witness. She told how she was in a situation where she was forced to violate professional ethics, confidentiality and trust of her patient. When the prosecutor congratulated her on the fact that she helped to put the “scum” behind bars, the doctor felt devastated, because she could not help her patient and even harmed him by violating the main oath – “do no harm”.

In Russia, it is enough for an HIV-positive person to bite or scratch a policeman to get a few months on top of the main sentence. In Belarus, people living with HIV, living in families with children for a long time, receive real terms, depending on who was first registered with the doctor.

How has the perception of HIV transmission changed over the past 30 years?

Science took a big step forward. We live in an era of highly active antiretroviral therapy (ART), which has made HIV infection a chronic disease. Three critical studies have shown that the risk of transmitting the virus to HIV-positive people with sufficiently suppressed ART viral load is zero.

At the same time, taking an HIV-negative person with pre-exposure prophylaxis (PCP) as prescribed by a doctor almost always protects against HIV infection. These facts helped lawyers defend themselves against criminal prosecution on charges of transmitting HIV and putting it at risk of being brought forward from misconceptions about HIV as a “deadly weapon”.

What is the main illusion of the criminalization of HIV?

Criminal prosecution of PLHIV places the responsibility for HIV solely on them, thus creating an atmosphere of false peace for the rest of society for their health. People think their partners will warn that they have HIV under pain of criminal liability. In reality, this rarely happens, because the very dynamics of intimate contact, especially random contacts, exclude such information. As a result, people do not practice safe sex because they believe that if the partner does not report having HIV, then he is healthy and you can’t protect yourself. In many cases, the additional burden of possible criminal responsibility for concealing HIV-positive status only exacerbates the problems, making it difficult to talk openly about HIV in building relationships, in the work community and in the family.

Criminalization creates an atmosphere of false state effectiveness: it is being eliminated from the implementation of effective HIV information and prevention programs.

When my organization began working in prisons in the Donetsk region in 2005, I listened with horror and indignation to the stories of social workers about how HIV + men who did not infect their wives and to whom their spouses had no complaints were serving their sentences. My colleague from Kharkov received a suspended sentence only because she was pregnant (a mitigating factor), otherwise, she would have been in prison for not informing the nurse about her HIV status.

What is the main goal of your advocacy campaign for decriminalizing HIV?

The maximum program is to remove HIV infection from criminal law and use general legislation, for example, causing harm to health where the intent of HIV infection has been proven. Otherwise, it is a stigma built into the laws.

We will also consider as a big advance the cancellation of Part 1 of Article 130 of the Civil Code of Ukraine (Intentionally putting another person in danger of contracting the human immunodeficiency virus or other incurable infectious disease that is dangerous to human life – is punishable by arrest for up to three months or restriction of liberty for up to five years , or imprisonment for up to three years), which human rights activists and activists have been talking about for many years, but the proposed laws were lost in bureaucratic corridors back in 2016. Our country has a very progressive AIDS Law, but the Criminal Code contradicts it.

And, of course, the minimum program – in our country, where laws are still in place that criminalize the transmission of HIV, the courts must, in accordance with the standards of the criminal process, require evidence of intent to transmit HIV. It is impossible to presume or justify the existence of intent by circumstances such as knowledge and / or non-reporting by the accused of their HIV-positive status, participation in unprotected sex, having a baby without taking measures to prevent mother-to-child transmission of HIV, or sharing injecting drug use equipment .

It should be noted that people living with HIV suffer from multiple criminalization, since many of them belong to marginalized groups – people who use drugs and have sex work. They are being persecuted for possession of drugs for personal use and for engaging in sex work. This, of course, is a separate big problem, worthy of increased attention of human rights defenders of Ukraine.

Interview conducted by: Sergey Myasoedov (Ukrainian Helsinki Human Rights Union)

Криминализация ВИЧ создает атмосферу ложной эффективности работы государства

Глобальные изменения в украинском политикуме весной-летом 2019 года породили новую волну «больших ожиданий» гражданского общества применительно к изменениям в сфере законодательства. В итоге, наряду с призывами немедленно наказать всех коррупционеров и реструктурировать отечественную экономику, в СМИ за последние пол-года в обиход вошло понятие «декриминализация».

Наиболее известными на сегодня являются общественные кампании по декриминализации медицинской конопли и секс-работы. Обе темы считаются «горячими» с точки зрения журналистов и несомненно, что в ближайшие месяцы нас ожидает серьезная общественная дискуссия в этой сфере.

К сожалению, тема декриминализации ВИЧ на сегодня далека от фокуса внимания СМИ. Проект изменений Законодательства в этой сфере был передан правозащитниками на обсуждение в гос органы еще в начале 2017 года, но, то ли в силу катастрофической стигматизированности темы, то ли в силу тотальной незаинтересованности чиновников в решении проблемы, он до сих пор находится «под сукном».

О том, почему статья 130 часть 1-я УК Украины так плоха, насколько изменились представления о передаче ВИЧ за последние 30 лет, и что же нам нужно сделать, чтобы убрать с десятков тысяч украинцев ярлык «Потенциальный преступник» беседуем с председательницей правления Евразийской Женской Сети по СПИДу Светланой Мороз.

Светлана я знаю, что у вас очень большой опыт работы по защите прав людей, живущих с ВИЧ и вы часто представляете Украину на международных конференциях по данной тематике. Правда ли, что криминализация ВИЧ является общим местом в Уголовных Кодексах стран с различной идеологией?

Согласно данным HIV Justice Network и Глобальной комиссии по ВИЧ и Законодательству по состоянию на июль 2018 года, в 68 странах предусмотрена уголовная ответственность за несообщение диагноза ВИЧ, поставление в опасность инфицирования и передачу ВИЧ, а ВИЧ-положительный статус может рассматриваться в качестве отягчающего ответственность и наказание обстоятельства.

Также имеется информация о случаях уголовного преследования в связи с ВИЧ-положительным статусом в 69 странах. Лидерами по количеству уголовных дел, связанных с ВИЧ, являются Беларусь, Канада, Россия и США. Да, в такой последовательности.

Но, с другой стороны, за период 2012-2018 гг. в ряде стран, например, в Венесуэле, Гане, Греции, Гондурасе, Зимбабве, Кении, Малави, Монголии, Таджикистане, Швейцарии и двух штатах США, были отменены законы, предусматривающие уголовную ответственность за передачу ВИЧ. И это тоже факт.

Какой ущерб наносит людям криминализация ВИЧ в реальной жизни?

Криминализация ВИЧ – это применение существующих уголовных или других законов в отношении людей, живущих с ВИЧ (ЛЖВ), устанавливающих ответственность за постановку в опасность заражения и заражение ВИЧ-инфекцией.

Чрезмерное использование законов, которые криминализуют ЛЖВ, является проблемой общественного здравоохранения, поскольку дискредитирует основанные на фактических данных стратегии в отношении профилактики ВИЧ-инфекции, а также лечения, ухода и поддержки ЛЖВ, и игнорирует научные достижения, связанные с риском передачи ВИЧ-инфекции. Криминализация усиливает стигму, связанную с ВИЧ-статусом, и идентифицирует ВИЧ-положительных людей, как потенциальных преступников, что, в свою очередь, еще больше повышает дискриминацию.

Таким образом, страх перед судебным преследованием может удерживать многих людей, живущих с ВИЧ, в частности женщин и представителей ключевых групп (люди, употребляющие наркотики, секс работницы_ки, мигранты, мужчины, имеющие секс с мужчинами и транслюди) от получения необходимого лечения и поддержки, препятствует раскрытию информации и повышает уязвимость людей, живущих с ВИЧ, к насилию.

Намного реже обсуждается то, как эти законы влияют на медицинских работников. Когда в США шел уголовный процесс над ВИЧ-положительным пациентом, в качестве свидетеля была вызвана его врач. Она рассказала, как оказалась в ситуации, когда была вынуждена нарушить и профессиональную этику, конфиденциальность и доверие своего пациента. Когда прокурор поздравил ее с тем, что она помогла отправить за решетку «подонка», врач почувствовала себя опустошенной, поскольку она не смогла помочь своему пациенту и даже навредила ему, чем преступила главную клятву – «не навреди».

В России достаточно ВИЧ-положительному человеку укусить или поцарапать полицейского, чтобы получить несколько месяцев сверху к основному приговору. В Беларуси люди, живущие с ВИЧ, долгое время прожившие в семьях, имеющие детей, получают реальные сроки, в зависимости от того, кто первый был поставлен на учет к врачу.

Как изменилось представление о передаче ВИЧ за последние 30 лет?

Наука сильно шагнула вперед. Мы живем в эпоху высоко активной антиретровирусной терапии (АРТ), которая сделала ВИЧ-инфекцию хроническим заболеванием. Три важнейших исследования доказали, что риск передачи вируса ВИЧ-положительными людьми с достаточно подавленной АРТ вирусной нагрузкой равен нулю.

В то же время, прием ВИЧ-отрицательным человеком доконтактной профилактики (ДКП) в соответствии с предписаниями врача почти всегда защищает от инфицирования ВИЧ. Эти факты помогли юристам в защите от уголовного преследования по обвинениям в передаче ВИЧ и поставлении в опасность инфицирования, предъявленным из неверных представлений о ВИЧ как о «смертельном оружии».

В чем состоит главная иллюзия криминализации ВИЧ?

Уголовное преследование ЛЖВ перекладывает ответственность за ВИЧ исключительно на них, создавая таким образом атмосферу ложного спокойствия остальных членов общества за свое здоровье. Люди думают, что под страхом уголовной ответственности их партнеры предупредят, что у них ВИЧ. В реальности это происходит редко, потому что сама динамика интимного контакта, особенно случайных контактов, исключает подобное информирование. В итоге люди не практикуют защищенный секс, потому что считают, если партнер не сообщил о наличии у него ВИЧ, значит он здоров и можно не предохраняться. Во многих случаях дополнительное бремя возможной уголовной ответственности за сокрытие ВИЧ-положительного статуса только усиливает проблемы, мешая открыто говорить о ВИЧ при установлении отношений, в рабочем коллективе и семье. В результате общество не защищено существующим уголовным законодательством в отношении ЛЖВ от ВИЧ-инфекции, а даже наоборот.

Криминализация создает атмосферу ложной эффективности работы государства: оно устраняется от реализации эффективных программ информирования и профилактики ВИЧ.

Когда моя организация начинала работать в местах лишения свободы в Донецкой области в 2005 году, я с ужасом и негодованием слушала истории соцработников о том, как отбывают свои сроки ВИЧ+ мужчины, которые не инфицировали своих жен и к которым их супруги не имели никаких претензий. Моя коллега из Харькова получила условный срок, только потому что была беременная (смягчающий фактор), иначе, сидела бы в тюрьме за то, что не сообщила медсестре о своем ВИЧ-статусе.

Какова основная цель вашей правозащитной деятельности в связи с кампанией по декриминализации ВИЧ?

Программа максимум – убрать ВИЧ-инфекцию из криминального законодательства и использовать общее законодательство, например, причинение вреда здоровью там, где доказан умысел инфицирования ВИЧ. Иначе, это встроенная в законы стигма.

Большим продвижением мы также посчитаем отмену части 1 статьи 130 КК Украины (Заведомое поставление другого лица в опасность заражения вирусом иммунодефицита человека либо иной неизлечимой инфекционной болезни, опасной для жизни человека, – наказывается арестом на срок до трех месяцев или ограничением свободы на срок до пяти лет, или лишением свободы на срок до трех лет), о которой правозащитники и активисты говорят много лет, но предложенные законы потерялись в бюрократических коридорах еще в 2016 году. В нашей стране существует очень прогрессивный Закон о СПИДе, но Криминальный Кодекс ему противоречит.

И, конечно, программа минимум – в нашей стране, где все еще действуют законы, предусматривающие уголовную ответственность за передачу ВИЧ, суды должны в соответствии со стандартами уголовного процесса требовать доказательства о наличии умысла передачи ВИЧ. Нельзя предполагать или обосновывать наличие умысла такими обстоятельствами, как знание и/или несообщение обвиняемым своего ВИЧ-положительного статуса, участие в незащищенном половом контакте, рождение ребенка без принятия мер по профилактике передачи ВИЧ от матери к ребенку, либо совместное использование инструментария для инъекционного употребления наркотиков.

Тут нужно отметить, что люди, живущие с ВИЧ, страдают от множественной криминализации, поскольку многие из них принадлежат к маргинализированным группам – к людям, употребляющим наркотики и занимающимся секс-работой. Их преследуют за хранение наркотиков с целью личного употребления и за занятие секс-работой. Это конечно же отдельная большая проблема, достойная повышенного внимания правозащитников Украины.

Интервью вёл: Сергей Мясоедов (Украинский Хельсинкский союз по правам человека)

The PJP Update – July 2019

The July 2019 edition of the Positive Justice Project newsletter is available here.

Mexico: Mexican Network of Organisations against HIV criminalisation calls on Veracruz State Congress to stop proposed criminalisation legislation

NGOs call local deputy to stop proposal that criminalizes people with HIV

Google translation, scroll down for Spanish article

On April 30, 2018, the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation ruled in favour of the Unconstitutionality Action 139/2015 promoted by the National Human Rights Commission

The Mexican Network of Organizations Against HIV Criminalization, called upon the deputy chairwoman of the Administration and Budget Commission of the Veracruz State Congress, Jessica Ramírez Cisneros, to stop the legislative process of her proposal to reform articles 157 and 158 of the Criminal Code of the State , where it is intended to impose from six months to five years in prison and a fine of up to 50 Units of Measurement and Update (UMA) who, fraudulently, endangers of “contagion” of a serious illness to another person

In this, it is considered among these serious and communicable diseases to “syphilis, gonorrhea, hepatitis B and C, herpes, HIV, tuberculosis” , which contradicts the historical ruling of the SCJN that invalidates the modification of the annulment of article 158.

Through a letter addressed to the legislator to channel their efforts for human rights and encourage the repeal of article 158 of the Criminal Code for the Free and Sovereign State of Veracruz of Ignacio de la Llave.

Remember that on April 30, 2018, the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation ruled in favor of the Unconstitutionality Action 139/2015 promoted by the National Human Rights Commission , at the request of the Multisectoral Group on HIV / AIDS and STIs of the State of Veracruz, against the amendment to article 158 of the Criminal Code for the Free and Sovereign State of Veracruz of Ignacio de la Llave, in whose content the penalty for the offense of alleged “contagion” (transmission should be said) was added to who has sexually transmitted infections, specifying HIV.

ONGs llaman a diputada local parar propuesta que criminaliza a personas con VIH

El 30 de abril de 2018, la Suprema Corte de Justicia de la Nación falló a favor de la Acción de Inconstitucionalidad 139/2015 promovida por la Comisión Nacional de los Derechos Humanos

La Red Mexicana de Organizaciones contra la Criminalización del VIH, hizo un exhorto a la diputada presidenta de la Comisión de Administración y Presupuesto del Congreso del Estado de Veracruz, Jessica Ramírez Cisneros, detener el proceso legislativo de su propuesta para reformar los artículos 157 y 158 del Código Penal del Estado, en donde se pretende imponer de seis meses a cinco años de prisión y multa de hasta 50 Unidades de Medida y Actualización (UMA) a quien, dolosamente, ponga en peligro de “contagio” de una enfermedad grave a otra persona.

En esta, se considera entre dichas enfermedades graves y transmisibles a la “sífilis, gonorrea, hepatitis B y C, herpes, VIH, tuberculosis”, misma que contradice el fallo histórico de la SCJN que invalida la modificación del anula el artículo 158.

A través de una carta dirigida a la legisladora canalizar sus esfuerzos en pro de los derechos humanos y fomente la derogación del artículo 158 del Código Penal para el Estado Libre y Soberano de Veracruz de Ignacio de la Llave.

Recuerdan que el 30 de abril de 2018, la Suprema Corte de Justicia de la Nación, falló a favor de la Acción de Inconstitucionalidad 139/2015 promovida por la Comisión Nacional de los Derechos Humanos, a solicitud del Grupo Multisectorial en VIH/sida e ITS del Estado de Veracruz, en contra de la reforma al artículo 158 del Código Penal para el Estado Libre y Soberano de Veracruz de Ignacio de la Llave, en cuyo contenido se agregó la sanción por delito de presunto “contagio” (debería decirse transmisión) a quien presente infecciones de transmisión sexual, especificando VIH.