Unraveling the legal challenges surrounding HIV criminalisation in russia

Russian Court Cases and HIV Transmission: What You Need to Know

Text: Alexey Semenov

Russian courts annually pronounce several dozen sentences under articles related to the transmission of HIV infection. At the same time, leading international organizations have long called for the abandonment of such articles in the Criminal Code, because they interfere with the fight against the HIV epidemic. “Such Cases” examined judicial statistics and also found out why Russians write statements against their partners.

In 2019, a documentary was released on Russian television series Anton Krasovsky’s “Epidemic” about people living with HIV. Then the co-founder of the ANO “Sibiryachki Plus” Maria Petrova, whose story was told by the documentary filmmakers, received a call from her boyfriend, whom she had been dating for three years at that time.

“He was very excited. He said: “You are so and so, they showed you on the second channel. My relatives saw it.” And it was his relatives who told him that he would not eat with them, he would not wash with them,” recalls Maria.

Read also “How many partners have you had?” Why people with HIV prefer to hide their status

The man explained that in order to be rehabilitated in front of his relatives, he must write a statement against Maria to the police about “the threat of HIV infection.” Petrova could not transmit any virus to him – she had been going to the AIDS Center for a long time and regularly took therapy.

After some time, Maria received a call from the police and invited her to talk – they told her that a man had written a statement against her. The police immediately reassured Maria, noting that they would not initiate a case.

“What saved me was that I live with an open face, write about my status on social networks and hold events. And this man is among my friends and subscribers. The police examined social networks and decided that he could not have known about my status. And if a partner knows that a person has HIV, then there is no criminal case,” explains Maria.

What we thought

We have collected all available cases under Article 122 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation from the state system “Justice”, as well as statistics from the judicial department at the Supreme Court. Most of the texts of the verdicts are not published, as they relate to the intimate lives of people. The Eurasian Women’s AIDS Network, which has been monitoring cases of persecution of people with HIV and their blackmail since 2017, also shared cases with us.

Since then, Petrova has been approached by people with HIV who have been subject to statements of intentional infection, by those who want to go to the police, and by investigators who receive such cases. “It’s good if you come across a competent investigator and interrogator. But basically, since there is not much practice in such cases, many investigators and interrogators, reading the statement, come across this article for the first time,” says Maria.

Po data Judicial Department of the Supreme Court, since 2015, 702 people have been convicted in Russia under the article on intentional infection with HIV or creating a threat of such infection, and another 11 were sent to compulsory psychiatric treatment.

A little more than 0.9% of cases under this article were acquitted or dismissed on exonerating grounds. 17.5% of such cases were closed for other reasons, including due to the death of the accused. Thus, in 2021 in Adygea, a woman who infected her partner with HIV died during the trial. In Kabardino-Balkaria, a prisoner died after cutting his hand and spattering blood on the eye of a prison doctor. He was also accused of attempted infection with the virus.

“Why did you do this to me?”

According to the current Russian law, everyone who registers with the AIDS Center signs a warning about criminal liability for intentional infection with HIV. Courts pay attention to this circumstance when passing sentences: if a person signed documents in an infectious disease specialist’s office, any case of infection from him is considered intentional.

“Suppose I just found out that I have HIV. I go to the doctor, I’m dumbfounded. I think I’m going to die soon. And they tell me in the doctor’s office: “Sign the document.” What is in it is not very clear. But you take and sign a document stating that you are a potential criminal without thinking. Even if the doctor explains something, the person is unlikely to remember it, because at that moment he has something completely different in his head,” explains Maria.

Ekaterina Stepanova, an infectious disease doctor at the University Clinic H-Clinic, Candidate of Medical Sciences, who acts as an expert in criminal cases of HIV infection, believes that the process of warning about liability is organized incorrectly:

“People don’t understand what they signed, they don’t understand what they were told. Of course, the moment of signing these papers should be postponed to a time when the person is sane.”

Read also “Just yell, demand and achieve.” Prisoners with HIV across Russia report being denied access to treatment

But epidemiologists are punished by their superiors if a person leaves and does not sign these papers, the doctor explains. “But you have to understand that the patient came, and instead of being supported, they interrogated him and said that he was facing a criminal case. Will he return to this wonderful place? “It’s more likely no than yes,” says Stepanova.

The victims in cases of HIV infection are often the former partners of patients, says Maria Petrova. Most often, sentences under articles of infection or threat of infection with HIV are made against men. They were convicted in 68% of cases, it follows from statistics Supreme Court of Russia since 2017.

“Mainly, the applicants are women who, out of resentment that their partner broke up with them, write a statement. He didn’t even infect them with HIV because he was taking ARV therapy, but they write a statement that he put them at risk of infection, and this is also a criminal offense,” explains Petrova.

In 2022, a resident of Novoaltaisk was sentenced to a suspended sentence for transmitting HIV to his partner as a result of a long “romantic relationship.” The couple had sex without a condom by consent, but after a while the woman discovered HIV pills on her lover and asked: “Why did you do this to me?” After this conversation, the relationship did not end and the young people continued to have sex, but broke up due to “domestic conflicts.” Some time later, the woman was diagnosed with HIV, and she wrote a statement against her former partner. He was sentenced to one year and eight months of suspended imprisonment.

Of the 17 cases of prosecution under Article 122 of the Criminal Code – about HIV infection or the threat of such infection, recorded by the Eurasian Women’s AIDS Network in 2017–2023, at least six are related to long-term, in fact, family relationships. Thus, a man from the Kurgan region was convicted in 2014 of having sex with his wife – at that time the couple was raising two children together. Maria Petrova emphasizes:

“If two consenting adults have sex, it is still a matter of two people.”

“And why is it always an HIV-positive person who is a potential criminal? After all, both are responsible for their health. And when one of the partners insists on sex without a condom or agrees to it, he is also responsible – two are to blame,” Maria is sure.

“If people decide not to use condoms, then they need to be examined together and remember the incubation window period and fidelity to each other. Such subtle issues that, it seems to me, are quite strange to regulate by criminal law,” says Natalya Sidorenko, coordinator of the working group on decriminalization of HIV transmission.

In the Joint United Nations Program on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) it says that any laws that criminalize HIV must be repealed because they discourage people from getting treatment and contribute to the spread of the virus.

“Punitive laws have been shown to block access to HIV services and increase the risk of HIV infection,” the organization said. It notes that criminalizing HIV transmission increases stigma against people living with the virus and creates an atmosphere of “false calm.” “People think that, on pain of criminal liability, their partner(s) will warn that they have HIV,” it says report “Eurasian Women’s Network on AIDS”.

“In order to hide his own crime”

The article on HIV transmission is redundant, because the Criminal Code already regulates all possible consequences for victims, says Natalya Sidorenko.

“If this was sexualized violence, then the article “Rape” has a separate clause that increases the punishment for contracting HIV. Simply transmitting the human immunodeficiency virus is a harm of moderate severity, because the harm occurs with the development of the disease. And now we have antiretroviral therapy, and people do not live to reach the AIDS stage, because the disease does not develop and no harm is caused,” explains the coordinator.

Of the 910 cases of HIV transmission or threat of infection, more than 27% involve sexualized violence, Takie Cases calculated. Another 6% of these cases involve sexual contact between adults and minors. Also, more than 10% of cases involve other types of physical violence: robberies, assaults and beatings. In 12 cases, the defendants were charged with murder.

Sometimes the same people become victims of sexualized violence and at the same time involved in cases of HIV transmission. In 2015, a resident of Karachay-Cherkessia reported to the police about rape in a barn on a farm. But the police decided that no one had raped the woman, and she wrote the statement “in order to hide her own crime” – the threat of infecting her partner with HIV. The woman was sentenced to two years of suspended imprisonment for false denunciation and the theoretical possibility of transmitting the virus.

When considering such cases, the courts do not examine the real possibility of the defendant infecting the victim, explains Maria Petrova.

“Nobody finds out whether a person took therapy”

“A specialist from the AIDS Center comes to court and speaks as a representative of the state, but the Russian Ministry of Health does not recognize the principle “undetectable equals non-transmitting”. That is, doctors from public hospitals claim that the likelihood of infection from a person with an undetectable viral load still exists, although all leading experts say the opposite,” says Maria.

“Those who were reported and came to us took therapy. It turns out that they could not create a threat to transmit the virus,” confirms coordinator Natalya Sidorenko.

Po opinion WHO, the risk of transmission of the virus from a person with an undetectable viral load is “virtually zero.” But the chief freelance HIV specialist of the Russian Ministry of Health, Alexey Mazus believes that the studies proving this position are based on too small a sample of patients.

“There are no specifics on this issue, only sloganeering, which ultimately allows us to speak publicly about the unlimited right of a patient with HIV infection with an abstract “undetectable” viral load to have free sexual contacts and even to conceal the diagnosis,” Mazus said.

Doctor Ekaterina Stepanova says that Rospotrebnadzor specialists already recognize people with an undetectable viral load as harmless. In the last editorial staff The SanPiN department indicates the existence of “quantitative indicators of the presence of the virus in the blood below the level that ensures the possibility of HIV transmission.”

“In fact, allegations about the possibility of transmission of the virus from people with an undetectable load are due to the insufficient education of those doctors who appear in courts. Because many experts agree with a different point of view. And science has done enough for others to stop denying the obvious,” the infectious disease specialist is sure.

At the same time, courts do not always take into account the opinions of doctors

Stepanova recalls one of the trials in which she participated as an expert – then all the experts agreed that the defendant could not transmit the virus, but the conclusions were interpreted incorrectly: “Judges often say: “We are examining the rule of law, not this infection of yours.” ” And then, when the analysis begins and they realize that they don’t understand anything, they’re like: “Okay, let’s get your experts.”

According to Stepanova, the denial of the principle “undetectable equals non-transmitting” by part of the medical community leads to a decrease in the coverage of patients with therapy. By data for 2022, only 61% of Russians with an officially established diagnosis received therapy. To defeat the epidemic, this figure must be increased to 95% worldwide, and 95% must have an undetectable viral load, believes UNAIDS.

“People who do not receive therapy are really dangerous in terms of transmitting the virus. But it is they who most often do not receive any punishment if others are infected, because they are not registered and do not sign a warning about criminal liability,” explains doctor Stepanova.

Bite danger

Russian courts consider biting, spitting and splashing of blood to be the real ways of transmitting the virus, as follows from the published verdicts. Thus, a resident of Yuzhnouralsk was convicted, among other things, of the threat of HIV infection for biting a policeman in the “right shoulder blade area.” A resident of Korolev was convicted on similar charges in 2015, and in 2018, a student who escaped from a Vologda orphanage was convicted.

“One of the cases involves an examination by an employee of the AIDS Center, who said that the possibility of transmission of the virus through a bite cannot be ruled out. But this is nonsense. WHO, UNAIDS and all other people, adequate infectious disease epidemiologists, will say that the probability of transmitting the virus through a bite is zero,” says Natalya Sidorenko.

Infectious disease doctor Ekaterina Stepanova emphasizes that during all the years of the HIV epidemic, only a few cases of transmission of the virus through a bite have been recorded: “The risk is theoretically possible with a high viral load and a sufficiently large amount of blood in the saliva. Roughly speaking, if, for example, during the detention of a suspect, his teeth were knocked out, his face was broken, and he spat at a police officer, there is some risk here.”

According to the State Automated Information Agency “Justice”, violence against police officers was charged along with the threat of HIV infection in 2.5% of cases. Often, security forces expose themselves to an additional risk of contracting HIV when they deprive detained, arrested and convicted people of access to therapy, Stepanova notes:

“Here it is in the interests of the state and its representatives that people take therapy”

“This is necessary so that even at such moments the risk of infection is minimal,” says the infectious disease specialist.

In 5% of cases of HIV infection, according to the State Automated Information System “Justice”, along with the main accusation, the courts dealt with episodes of theft and fraud; 11 cases were related to drugs, 13 – to other crimes.

In 55% of cases, according to the same data, the defendants were not charged with anything other than possible HIV transmission. Moreover, at least 14 people were convicted only for the threat of infection, which in reality did not occur.

Articles on HIV infection migrated to the Russian Criminal Code from the Soviet one, says coordinator Natalya Sidorenko. “Of course, this article is outdated – it was adopted in the late 80s in the Criminal Code of the RSFSR, then it migrated to all these criminal codes in the post-Soviet space. Then there was no information about HIV, there was no treatment and, of course, there was enough fear.”

Doctor Stepanova agrees with Sidorenko – she calls the article on HIV infection inconsistent with modern scientific knowledge. “The norm was adopted quite a long time ago, the revision was also a long time ago, and ideas about the safety of people with an undetectable load were finally approved in 2018,” she explains.

Natalya Sidorenko calls the existence of the first paragraph of Article 122 of the Criminal Code “nonsense” – about “putting another person at risk of contracting HIV infection.” According to her, this formulation creates the problem of blackmail of people with HIV from their partners.

Since 2017, the Eurasian Women’s AIDS Network has documented 15 cases of blackmail. They were mainly associated with disagreements between former partners and spouses – for example, when they could not decide with whom their common children would live.

So, a husband wanted to write a statement against a woman from the Nizhny Novgorod region, who was upset about the upcoming divorce. The woman was saved from a criminal case by the fact that he was indicated in the medical record as a proxy, was examined during his wife’s pregnancy and visited the AIDS Center with her.

This is the best way for a person with HIV to protect themselves from accusations in the event of a disagreement with their partner, says Maria Petrova. In addition to a joint visit to the doctor, she recommends telling a third person about your status, and also getting a receipt from your partner.

Pressure on people with HIV

Such strict regulation of the lives of people with HIV leads to the fact that they are simply afraid to enter into relationships, and even more so to inform their partners about their diagnosis, says project manager of the Children+ Foundation, psychologist Anna Sharabanova. Partners of people with HIV may be pressured by relatives who have misconceptions about the infection.

“There are always exceptions, and one of them is older people who grew up in a time when HIV was considered a plague and everyone avoided these three letters as much as possible. It is often difficult for such people to accept new information, it is difficult to agree that there is no danger, to get rid of beliefs that have accumulated over the years. For this reason, the relatives of someone who has chosen a person living with HIV as a partner raise this issue sharply, even to the point of ultimatums – they put pressure towards not just breaking the union, but also legal proceedings,” says Sharabanova.

If a person with HIV has difficulty disclosing the diagnosis to a partner, she advises contacting a specialized psychologist or peer consultants: “The words “I am a peer consultant, I have a husband with whom we gave birth to three healthy children, two higher educations and a very successful career.” “Coming from a living example can calm a person.”

Thank you for reading to the end!

An encouraging start to 2024

This year has begun with some really encouraging news: years of HIV criminalisation advocacy are really paying off.

First, we heard that the Congress of Mexico City completely repealed the crime of “danger of contagion” from the Penal Code. The repeal was approved with an overwhelming majority of 42 votes in favour and only two against. As per the decision, Articles 76 and 130 have been modified to eliminate the criminalisation of people with sexually transmitted infections (STIs), including HIV. This is a direct result of community activism led by the Mexican Network Against HIV Criminalisation. Congresswoman Ana Francis López noted that, with the adoption of this decision, Congress is fulfilling the demands of communities living with HIV that asked not to be discriminated against or punished. Mexico City joins the states of Aguascalientes, Jalisco, Nayarit, San Luis Potosí and Tabasco, where their Penal Codes do not provide for a specific crime for exposure to HIV or STIs.

Then we heard that progress is being made towards HIV decriminalisation in Tajikistan. The recent Plenum of the Supreme Court marked the first step in this important process. One of the most significant changes was the recognition of the fact of placing people at risk of HIV was an unproven basis for criminal prosecution. With almost 200 known HIV criminalisation cases, this process now needs to speed up. Marginalised groups bear the brunt of the implementation of the HIV criminalisation law in Tajikistan; starting in 2014, authorities have regularly targeted sex workers and LGBT people, often under the guise of disease prevention. We remain hopeful that further progress will be made in the near future to ensure that people living with HIV are not unjustly criminalised in Tajikistan.

We also heard welcome news that another country with far too many unjust prosecutions, Singapore, is also moving towards law reform. The Singapore Ministry of Health is currently conducting a review of the law concerning HIV disclosure. This review will hopefully result in changes to current draconian practices and policies that has seen the law used to convict people – usually gay men – where condoms had been used and where the person living with HIV had an undetectable viral load.

And finally, with the support of our HIV JUSTICE WORLDWIDE Francophone Network, led by the HIV Legal Network, civil society groups are urging authorities in Burkina Faso to reconsider the HIV criminalisation provisions contained within its HIV law, Law 030. The call for action reflects a broader effort to improve the health and wellbeing of people living with HIV/AIDS in Burkina Faso and across the continent.

These are but a few examples of the hard work and dedication of so many of us. The global movement to end HIV criminalisation is making significant progress. Let’s keep up the momentum.

Together, we can make HIV JUSTICE WORLDWIDE a reality.

Mexico: Only 4 States have repealed their HIV criminalisation articles, it is time for the others to follow suit

In 29 states, the “danger of contagion” category still criminalises people with HIV

Translated via Deep.com. Scroll down for original article in Spanish

Aguascalientes, San Luis Potosi and now Mexico City have repealed Article 159 that could lead to imprisonment for people living with HIV. ERRATUM: Nayarit also repealed its danger of contagion law in 2023.

With 42 votes in favour, 2 against and 0 abstentions, the Congress of Mexico City endorsed the repeal of the criminal offence of HIV risk supported in Article 159, however, in 29 states of the Republic this figure is still in force.

According to the report “La legislación mexicana en materia dd VIH”, Aguascalientes, San Luis Potosí and now recently Mexico City are the only states in the Republic that do not use the figure “danger of contagion” to criminalise people with HIV.

According to data from the Mexican Network of Organisations against the Criminalisation of HIV, the criminalisation of this health condition is a phenomenon that is used to enact laws that punish the conduct of people suspected of transmitting HIV and whose application is specifically aimed at this population.

The wave of criminalisation under the category of “danger by contagion” was extended to people who had covid-19 during the pandemic, raising a red flag for human rights organisations.

Alaín Pinzón, director of the organisation VIH Libre, said that the category of danger by contagion is part of the stigma of the laws, which he stresses need to be harmonised.

“To think that HIV-positive people go through life being contagious is part of the stigma and prejudice that needs to be eradicated. HIV is transmitted, not spread,’ he said.

An example of the permanence of this article is reflected in states such as Oaxaca or Guerrero, where a person can spend up to 10 years in prison if it is confirmed that the disease he or she has is incurable.

In states such as Guanajuato, in order to get married, a person will be required to undergo nuptial examinations; if either of the persons involved is living with a chronic or incurable condition such as HIV, they will not be allowed to marry.

Even in states such as Veracruz, living with HIV can prevent the gaining of guardianship of a minor.

In the case of Mexico City, the elimination of article 169 of the penal code took a long years-long struggle, being promoted from the plenary by Temistocles Villanueva of Morena.

Only two states have a specific HIV law

Gonzalo Aburto, one of the pioneer activists in the fight against HIV and member of the Mexican HIV Network, mentions that only two states in the Mexican Republic have specific legislation for people with HIV, Mexico City and Veracruz, which hinders true access to justice.

“The use of punitive laws increases discrimination and stigma towards HIV status and places those living with the virus in a predisposed criminal status,” he said.

According to the Mexican HIV Network, so far there is no Federal Law on HIV. Only the federal instrument regulating the different aspects related to the care, diagnosis, prevention and treatment of HIV and AIDS operates: the Mexican Official Standard NOM-010-SSA2-2010.
However, the National Human Rights Commission (CNDH) has issued four general recommendations on the matter and 27 on particular cases where the human rights of people living with HIV have been violated.

According to the network’s report, the violations can range from denial of health services for living with the virus to imprisonment under the crime of “danger of contagion”.

Women, children and indigenous communities are among the most vulnerable groups, according to the Mexican Network.

“Many of the laws to care for people with HIV need to be changed, many of them have not been updated for decades, without being updated on human rights issues,” said Gonzalo Aburto.

Some other acts of discrimination for living with HIV and studied by the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation (SCJN) are: the liquidation of health workers for living with the virus, the dismissal of military personnel from the system for living with this health condition and medical negligence.

“Unfortunately in Mexico discriminatory practices and attitudes are still very common. Therefore, we must emphasise that HIV is not only a serious public health problem but also a conflict that cuts across social and human rights,” said the Mexican Network.

En 29 estados, la categoría “peligro de contagio” aún criminaliza a personas con VIH

Aguascalientes, San Luis Potosí y ahora la CDMX han derogado en artículo 159 que podía llevar a la cárcel a las personas con VIH

Con 42 votos a favor, 2 en contra y 0 abstenciones, el Congreso de la Ciudad de México avaló la derogación del tipo penal por riesgo de contagio por VIH respaldado en el artículo 159, sin embargo, en 29 estados de la República está figura sigue siendo vigente.

Según el informe “La legislación mexicana en materia dd VIH”, Aguascalientes, San Luis Potosí y ahora recientemente la Ciudad de México; son los únicos estados de la República que no utilizan la figura “peligro de contagio” para criminalizar a las personas con VIH.

Datos de la Red Mexicana de Organizaciones contra la Criminalización del VIH, la criminalización de esta condición de salud es un fenómeno que se usa para promulgar leyes que castigan la conducta de las personas que se sospecha pueden transmitir el VIH y cuya aplicación se dirige específicamente a esta población.

La ola de criminalización por la categoría “peligro por contagio”, se traspaso a las personas que tenían covid-19 durante la pandemia, lo que ocasionó una alerta a las organizaciones de derechos humanos.

Alaín Pinzón, director de la organización VIH libre compartió que la categoría de peligro por contagio es parte del estigma de las leyes, que recalca, necesitan armonizarse.

“Pensar que las personas seropositivas vamos por la vida contagiando es partendel estigma y el perjuicio que se debe erradicar. El VIH se transmite, no se contagia’ puntualizó.

Un ejemplo de la permanencia de este artículo se refleja en estados como Oaxaca o Guerrero, donde una persona puede pasar hasta 10 años en la cárcel si se confirma que el mal que posee en incurable.

En estados como Guanajuato, para poder contraer matrimonio, se necesitara llevar exámenes nupciales; sí alguna de las personas involucradas vive con algún padecimiento crónico o incurable como el VIH, no se les permitirá contraer nupcias.

Incluso en estados como Veracruz, el vivir con VIH puede impedir la ganancia de la tutela de un menor de edad.

Para el caso de la Ciudad de México, el eliminar el artículo 169 del código penal llevó una lucha de muchos años, siendo impulsada desde el pleno por Temístocles Villanueva, de Morena.

Solo dos estados cuentan con ley específica en materia de VIH

Gonzalo Aburto, uno de los activistas pioneros en la lucha contra el VIH y miembro de la Red Mexicana de VIH, menciona que sólo dos estados de la República mexicana cuentan con legislación específica para personas con VIH, Ciudad de México y Veracruz, lo que dificulta el verdadero acceso a la justicia.

“El uso de leyes punitivistas aumentan la discriminación y el estigma hacia el estado del VIH y sitúa a quienes viven con el virus en un estatus predisposición delincuencial” mencionó.

Según la Red Mexicana de VIH, hasta el momento no existe una Ley Federal en materia de VIH. Únicamente opera el instrumento federal regulador de los diferentes aspectos vinculados con la atención, diagnóstico, prevención y tratamiento del VIH y el sida: la Norma Oficial Mexicana NOM-010-SSA2-2010.
Sin embargo, la Comisión Nacional de Derechos Humanos (CNDH) ha emitido cuatro recomendaciones generales en la materia y 27 sobre casos particulares donde fueron vulnerados los derechos humanos de personas que viven con VIH.

Según el informe elaborado desde la red, las vulneración pueden ir desde la negación de los servicios de salud por vivir con el virus hasta ir a la cárcel bajo el delito “peligro de contagio”.

Las mujeres, los infantes y las comunidades indígenas forman parte de lo grupos más vulnerables según datos de la Red Mexicana.

“Muchas de las leyes para atender a las personas con VIH necesitan cambiarse, muchas de ellas no se han actualizado desde hace décadas, sin estar actualizados en temas de derechos humanos” dijo Gonzalo Aburto.

Algunos otros actos de discriminación por vivir con VIH y estudiandos por la Suprema Corte de Justicia de la Nación (SCJN) se encuentran: la liquidación de trabajadores de salud por vivir con el virus, la baja de militares del sistema por vivir con esta condición de salud y negligencia medica.

“Desafortunadamente en México las prácticas y las actitudes discriminatorias siguen siendo muy comunes. Por ello, debemos recalcar que el VIH no solo constituye un serio problema de salud pública sino, además, es un conflicto que atraviesa lo social y los derechos humanos” mencionó la Red Mexicana.

US: Williams Institute publishes new report on the enforcement of HIV Criminalization in Maryland

Williams Institute report: Black people account for 82 percent of HIV criminal cases in Md.

A report the Williams Institute released on Thursday notes Black people account for 82 percent of HIV-related criminal cases in Maryland.

The report notes Black people account for 30 percent of Maryland’s population, and 71 percent of people living with HIV in the state. The Williams Institute report also indicates Black men account for 14 percent of Maryland’s population and 44 percent of people living with HIV in the state, but comprise 68 percent of people accused in HIV-related criminal cases.

The report indicates at least 104 cases and at least 148 charges of “knowingly transferring HIV to another” in Maryland from 2000-2020. Three of the 104 cases, according to the report, “alleged only attempted ‘knowing transferring HIV to another.’”

Sixty-nine percent of “enforcement of HIV criminal laws” in Maryland happened in three jurisdictions: Baltimore City (32 percent), Montgomery County (19 percent) and Prince George’s County (18 percent.)

“Maryland’s law was enacted in 1989 at the height of the AIDS crisis before we had effective treatments for HIV,” said Williams Institute Criminalization Project Director Nathan Cisneros, who is the study’s lead author. “We now have medical treatments that wholly eliminate the risk of transmitting HIV through sex, yet these advances are not reflected in Maryland law despite several reform attempts in recent years.”

Section 18-601.1 of Maryland’s Health Code states “an individual who has the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) may not knowingly transfer or attempt to transfer the human immunodeficiency virus to another individual.” Anyone “who violates the provisions of this section is guilty of a misdemeanor and on conviction” could face a fine of up to $2,500 and/or up to three years in prison.

The Williams Institute based its report on data it obtained from the Maryland State Administrative Office of the Courts.

Download the full report

2023 in review: A delicate balance

A DELICATE BALANCE

Working to end punitive laws and policies that impact people living with HIV is never easy, but this year has been especially hard, as we fought to maintain that delicate balance between moving forward in our advocacy and preventing the erosion of our previous gains fuelled by the anti-rights movement and the growth of right-wing populism.

For the first time since the COVID-19 pandemic hit, we saw an increase in the number of reported HIV-related prosecutions: 86 cases in 18 countries. This compares with 49 cases in 16 countries last year and 54 cases in 20 countries in 2021. This year, as in previous years, the highest number of case reports come from the EECA region (Uzbekistan and Russia), followed by the United States (10 cases – a significant decrease) and the United Kingdom (5 cases – a worrying increase).

It is possible that we were seeing more case reports because there were actually more cases, but we must always consider these reported cases to be illustrative of what is likely to be a far more widespread, poorly documented use of criminal law against people living with HIV.

Although many people arrested or prosecuted were heterosexual men, we also saw a range of intersectional identities impacted by HIV criminalisation – particularly sex workers who may also have been transgender and/or people of colour and/or with a migration background. It is clear that a convergence of multiple levels of criminalisation, discrimination and other vulnerabilities leads to over-policing of the bodies and behaviours of people living with HIV.

LATIN AMERICA

Some of the most exciting and promising developments in 2023 came from Latin America. In June, Belize repealed its HIV-specific criminal law, enacted in 2001 but never applied, primarily to enable the country to be certified as having eliminated vertical transmission. And in August, Costa Rica’s People Living with HIV organisation pushed back against a parliamentarian’s proposal to reinstate an HIV criminalisation law.

It’s also clear that sustained advocacy by civil society in Mexico – which began in earnest when the HIV JUSTICE WORLDWIDE coalition supported the creation of the Mexican network in 2017 – is really making a difference. In March, the state of Nayarit repealed its infectious disease law that had mostly applied to people with HIV. The district of Mexico City is on its way to repeal a similar law. And another Mexican state, Baja California Sur, modernised the wording of the same law to attempt to destigmatise it, by removing the concept that communicable diseases are only prosecutable if sexually transmitted.

In November, a proposal for a new HIV criminalisation law in the state of Puebla was withdrawn following criticisms from HIV and human rights organisations, and a month later there are now proposals to reform the existing law. And civil society pressure to remove the federal HIV criminalisation law on constitutional grounds may have led to Mexico’s first trans congresswomen advocating for the repeal of the law in parliament. Given Mexico’s rights-based approach to SRHR – the country decriminalised abortion earlier this year – at least one of these repeal pathways are likely to succeed next year.

NORTH AMERICA

In the United States, we continued to see a marked reduction in the number of cases as the movement to repeal or modernise HIV criminalisation laws continued to grow due to ongoing, sustained advocacy by networks of people living with HIV with support from philanthropic funders as well as federal and state political leaders and public health institutions. Although, no states fully repealed their HIV-specific laws in 2023, and law reform proposals in Indiana, Minnesota, and North Dakota failed to pass, there were some important victories in Tennessee. Here, both law reform and strategic litigation bore fruit, the former by removing mandatory sex offender registration for those convicted under the HIV law, and the latter resulting in a ruling that Tennessee’s ‘aggravated prostitution’ statute violated the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Canada – another former global HIV criminalisation leader – continued to report fewer cases, with just one new reported case in 2023. As in the United States, this is the result of many years of sustained advocacy, although the federal government has still not responded formally to its 2022 public consultation on substantially reforming its approach to HIV criminalisation. The Canadian Coalition to Reform HIV Criminalization, led by HIV JUSTICE WORLDWIDE coalition partner, the HIV Legal Network, issued a strong statement on World AIDS Day calling for action.

AFRICA

Unlike previous years, the only country on the African continent with reported new HIV criminalisation cases in 2023 was Kenya, where lawmakers are still planning to follow Uganda in enacting even more criminalisation aimed at LGBTI people – as are Botswana, Ghana, and Niger. Following the December 2022 dismissal of the constitutional challenge to Kenya’s HIV-specific provisions in the Sexual Offences Act, there are plans to appeal and to continue to lobby for change.

Strategic litigation led by KELIN was ultimately successful in establishing that women living with HIV possess the inherent right to make informed choices regarding their reproductive decisions following a nine-year process, so sustained advocacy – and patience – may be required. Patience may also be needed in South Africa where long-awaited sex work decriminalisation was further postponed, although parliament did agree to clear COVID lockdown criminal records. Elsewhere, another positive development in the region was the repeal of Mauritius’ colonial-era sodomy law which means that the number of nations with laws against gay sex has now fallen to 66.

EASTERN EUROPE / CENTRAL ASIA

People living with HIV in the EECA region continue to face multiple challenges. In just the first six months of 2023, there were 20 cases of alleged “intentional HIV transmission” to sexual partners in Uzbekistan’s Tashkent region – the highest HIV criminalisation case count anywhere in the world. The majority of those prosecuted appeared to be women. This comes as no surprise given that an analysis of cases and laws across the ECCA region by our HIV JUSTICE WORLDWIDE partners, the Eurasian Women’s Network on AIDS (EWNA), found that women living with HIV bear the brunt of the “legalised stigma” of HIV criminalisation in the region.

One of the main reasons for the high number of cases in the EECA region is the integration of HIV criminalisation within healthcare policies: newly diagnosed individuals are made to sign a paper acknowledging their legal liability for HIV prevention often without receiving adequate or meaningful counselling or support. In Russia – where the second highest number of cases were reported – a study found that most HIV clinicians support HIV criminalisation, and in Kazakhstan it was revealed that 1-in-1000 people newly diagnosed with HIV in 2022 filed a police report blaming someone else for their infection.

The legal environment for people living with HIV in Russia continues to worsen, as it does for all its citizens, especially LGBTI people – with trans women sex worker migrants facing the brunt of the Russia’s anti-LGBT “propaganda” law. And in Tajikistan, homophobic and HIV-phobic law enforcement practices resulted in ten gay men being arrested Dushanbe on suspicion of “infecting 86 people with HIV.” The only positive news for the region came from Ukraine, where a new protective HIV law was adopted earlier this year, although criminal liability for HIV exposure or transmission remains a possibility.

WESTERN EUROPE

December saw two contrasting developments in Western Europe. Just as Ireland’s Supreme Court overturned the country’s first-ever sexual HIV criminalisation case – partially based on now well-established limitations of scientific evidence being able to prove who infected whom – a lower court in Latvia convicted someone of alleged HIV transmission for the first time.

And although in the United Kingdom, a long-awaited update to the Crown Prosecution Service’s guidance now unequivocally states that an undetectable viral load stops HIV transmission, five HIV criminalisation cases still took place, along with a highly publicised civil case. Per capita, this meant that in 2023 the UK had a five-fold incidence of reported HIV criminalisation cases compared to the United States!

ASIA PACIFIC

Singapore continues to lead the Asia Pacific region with four reported HIV criminalisation cases in 2023: one for blood donation, two for biting, and one involving a transgender sex worker for alleged HIV exposure. Although South Korea’s constitutional court ended up declaring most of its HIV criminalisation provisions constitutional, their recognition that U=U suggests the law may evolve to recognise up-to-date science.

Although ending HIV criminalisation cannot rely on science alone, it can help limit unjust prosecutions while we work to end the HIV-related stigma, discrimination and structural inequalities that drive criminalisation.

BRINGING SCIENCE TO JUSTICE

This year, we celebrated five years since the publication of the ‘Expert Consensus Statement on the Science of HIV in the Context of Criminal Law’ with our ‘Five-Year Impact Report’ and an HIV Justice Live! webshow focused on bringing science to justice. Both proved that the Expert Consensus Statement remains relevant, accurate and extremely useful.

Given this delicate balance between moving forward and preventing the erosion of hard-won rights there is still so much more to do to reach the global target of fewer than 10% of countries with punitive laws and policies that negatively impact the HIV response.

LET COMMUNITIES LEAD

To ensure that communities continue to lead, and to further enable the building of an intersectional movement to end punitive laws and policies that impact people living with HIV in all diversity, we made our online platform for e-learning and training, the HIV Justice Academy, more widely available in Spanish and Russian, to complement our English and French versions.

In 2023, the HIV Justice Academy was visited by several thousand learners from 110 countries. We were thrilled to learn that graduates of our flagship HIV Criminalisation Online Course told us that they really benefitted from the course, finding it relevant, interesting, and engaging.

RENEWED FOCUS FOR 2024

We will begin 2024 with a renewed focus to achieving HIV justice as we continue to:

build the evidence base by gathering relevant data and information from around the world.
raise awareness across multiple platforms and communities of the harms of HIV criminalisation.
create, collate, and disseminate advocacy tools and resources to foster more effective responses to damaging laws, policies, and media narratives; and
bring individuals and national, regional, and global networks and organisations together, as part of the HIV JUSTICE WORLDWIDE coalition, to catalyse change.

Announcing Living 2024:
The People Living with HIV Pre-conference at AIDS2024!

As we commemorate World AIDS Day, a coalition that so far includes: the Global Network of People Living with HIV (GNP+), the International Community of Women Living with HIV (ICW), the Global Network of Young People Living with HIV (Y+ Global), the HIV Justice Network (HJN), AIDS Action Europe (AAE), and the European AIDS Treatment Group (EATG) are delighted to announce our plans to host the People Living with HIV Pre-conference at AIDS2024.

Living 2024 is planned for 20th and 21st July 2024 ahead of the AIDS2024 conference in Munich.

Looking back to 1983, when the very first gathering of people living with HIV developed the Denver Principles, setting the path to the greater involvement, engagement and leadership of people living with HIV in the AIDS response, we are committed to sustain that legacy and make Living 2024 a platform for people living with HIV and our close allies and partners to connect, and strengthen global solidarity for community leadership in the AIDS response.

Living 2024 will be organised under the theme, ‘‘Communities leading: advancing health, dignity, equity”.

This is the first time since 2016 that the global community of people living with HIV in all our diversities will meet in person to reflect on the multiple socio-political challenges faced by people living with HIV that continue to limit the civic space needed for our advocacy, as well as the inequalities that fuel stigma, discrimination and criminalisation.

We plan to build power together and identify opportunities to strengthen access to affordable and optimised treatment and diagnostics including for addressing the unique challenges of ageing with HIV.

Living 2024, is also an opportunity for people living with HIV and affected communities to come together to reflect, re-imagine and define the future of the HIV movement, as well as our place within the broader global health and development platforms in shaping the HIV sustainability plans beyond 2030.

The organisers of Living 2024 call on countries and decision-makers to refocus, recommit, and ensure that communities lead. AIDS isn’t over, our lives and dignity are still under threat, and stigma, discrimination and criminalisation still prevent us from fully benefiting from the remarkable progress of HIV science.

As we prepare for this crucial convening, we invite other networks, communities, partners, and potential funders to join us in making this event successful and historic. In the coming weeks, we will share more details. For any inquiries please reach out to us on email: living2024@gnpplus.net

Download this press release as a pdf

EECA Judges’ Forum on HIV, Human Rights and the Law meet to discuss challenges presented by punitive laws

Judges from Eastern Europe and Central Asia gather in Moldova to discuss the region’s pressing issues around health, HIV, human rights and the law

The Eastern European and Central Asian Judges’ Forum on HIV, Human Rights and the Law – an independent body of judges from the region yearly convened by UNDP – starts their two-day meeting on 27 November 2023 in Chișinău, Moldova, to discuss challenges that punitive laws present to the full realization of the rights of people living with and affected by HIV.

The Forum, started in Moldova five years ago, returns this year to address challenges that remain in the region, as well as to highlight the progress made by countries like Moldova in addressing them.

“The Ministry of Justice is taking all measures to bring criminal policy in line with European standards, ensuring human rights is a priority. To this end, sanctions have been adjusted in criminal law with the aim of humanizing and clearly distinguishing cases of drug use from drug dealing. In addition, it is proposed to diversify the penalties in order to promote alternatives to imprisonment. Improving the human rights protection system remains a priority for the Ministry of Justice, and each of us understands that we must apply a proactive policy in the area of combating drug use, enhancing the role of the judiciary in ensuring the rights of this category of people are reconceptualized,” noted Veronica Mihailov-Moraru, Minister of Justice of the Republic of Moldova.

“At the core of our discussions during the Forum are real people – individuals whose lives and rights depend on the decisions made within the walls of courtrooms. It is our responsibility to protect these rights, to champion the cause of justice, and to ensure that no one is left behind in our fight against HIV,” said Andrea Cuzyova, UNDP Deputy Resident Representative to the Republic of Moldova.

The Eastern Europe and Central Asia (EECA) region is among three in the world where HIV infections and deaths are still on the rise. Fifteen countries in the region still criminalize HIV transmission, and many others, in law or practice, restrict access to life-saving services for key populations. People who use drugs are still the most impacted by HIV in the region; rigid drug policies often drive people away from vital health services. This exacerbates the HIV epidemic and facilitates high incarceration rates, contributing to a burgeoning tuberculosis epidemic and other health and social challenges for individuals upon release.

Prior to the war in Ukraine, labor migration has been a significant driver of HIV and TB epidemics in the EECA region, and currently internally displaced persons and migrants have limited access to vital health services, including HIV and tuberculosis, and legal support. HIV decriminalization and pro-active drug policy reforms are long overdue in the region.

“We now have evidence that countries with more enabling societal and legal environments where punitive policies are replaced with those that put people and health at the center and protect rights to non-discrimination are associated with bigger declines in HIV incidence,” said Vera Ilyenkova, Adviser, Key populations & Communities engagement in UNAIDS Regional Support Team for Eastern Europe and Central Asia. UNAIDS report this year focused on the opportunities that countries can take for legal reform and innovation to stem HIV epidemics.

“A large number of incarcerated people across the Eastern European and Central Asian region are serving prison terms for drug related offenses, in many cases simple possession with no harm to others. It is time to reflect on whether this is an effective measure, whether it is the right public investment, whether it is justified and proportionate. I invite all participants to the Judges forum to consider that the answer to these questions is NO and that drug policies in the region should undergo significant reforms” said Prof. Michel Kazatchkine, Special Advisor to the World Health Organization Regional Office for Europe (WHO/Europe)

The role of judges in addressing health and other social issues is critical. The justice system can either impede or facilitate social and public health efforts to provide equitable health care, thus ultimately contributing to the achievement of universal health coverage. In addition, an independent, impartial, accountable and professional judicial system, as well as the protection of fundamental rights, is increasingly a topic of discussion in the region, where some countries are candidates for EU accession.

“Our region is presented with many challenges and as judges we are also impacted. The choice is ours – not to pay attention to the issues or to ask hard questions and to apply the law with the view of protections of human rights, so that no one is left behind,” said Sharof Alanazarzoda, Judge of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Tajikistan and member of the Forum Steering Committee.

The two-day forum includes judges from Ukraine, Georgia, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Moldova; high-level officials from Moldova, Eastern and Central European and Central Asian Commission on Drug Policy; development partners and civil society leadership from the region and from Moldova. Topics addressed will include HIV decriminalization, EU integration, drug policy reform, migration and fostering collaboration between civil society, UN, and the judiciary in achieving high-level targets on HIV elimination.

What do our HIV Justice Academy graduates think of the HIV Criminalisation Online Course?

The HIV Criminalisation Online Course is the centrepiece of our free online learning hub, the HIV Justice Academy, which launched just over a year ago.

More than 500 HIV justice advocates from around the world have since enrolled in the HIV Criminalisation Online Course. Those who have completed the course – and told us their thoughts in the end-of-course survey – are extremely positive about the experience, finding it relevant, interesting, and engaging. They especially liked the video content and personal testimonies which they tell us brought the issues to life. And we heard from both beginners and experts alike that the course was pitched right for them – no mean feat!

“Although I have been working on HIV discrimination for years, it was spectacular to refresh the memory,” wrote one. “The course met my expectations fully…now I really feel strongly equipped to continue doing my community work,” said another. “The course took a holistic approach to explaining HIV criminalisation. It lends legal, scientific, and social perspective, it also went further to touching on how I could be an advocate,” said a third.

One recent Academy graduate is HIV advocate and HIV criminalisation survivor, Lashanda Salinas, from the US state of Tennessee. She told us that the HIV Criminalisation Online Course “helped me learn things that I didn’t know, including how people are criminalised in other countries.” She also tells us that she found the course’s comprehensive Glossary and the Academy’s Resource Library “amazing and helpful”.

Like all the advocacy tools and resources contained within the HIV Justice Academy, the HIV Criminalisation Online Course is free to all, and available in English, French, Russian and Spanish.

The course can be done at your own pace, and you will receive a certificate of completion once you have passed the end-of-course test.

We’re delighted that Lashanda and all the other graduates of the HIV Justice Academy’s HIV Criminalisation Online Course have learned new information and gained new skills as we work together to achieve HIV justice.

Do you know someone who might benefit from the HIV Criminalisation Online Course, or the other resources in the HIV Justice Academy – our Action Toolkits and Resource Library? Why not share this link with them today: academy.hivjustice.net

The unseen consequences of HIV criminalisation and its impact on marginalized communities

How civil commitment can ensnare people prosecuted under HIV criminalization

By
Robert Suttle

TheBody recently published, “We Keep Ignoring HIV Criminalization,” an article that addressed the lack of attention given to HIV criminalization laws.

These laws criminalize people living with HIV for a range of actions―such as having sex without first disclosing their serostatus―often, even when they are virally suppressed and therefore incapable of transmitting the virus. As is always the case, ignorance of the law is no defense against it.

In some states, HIV criminalization laws punish people living with HIV for biting or spitting even though, once again, these acts cannot transmit the virus. But losing one’s freedom under these laws doesn’t stop at simple prosecution. In some states, people prosecuted under these laws are required to register on state sex-offender registries, even when no sexual assault has taken place.

It should be noted that prosecuting and equating people living with HIV with rapists and other violent sexual assailants does nothing to decrease HIV transmissions. Rather, as “We Keep Ignoring HIV Criminalization” notes, these harsh measures promulgate stigma, possibly discourage people from getting tested, and place targets on the foreheads of anyone living with the virus.

Beyond this, part of what makes HIV criminalization laws so insidious is that they have additional components to them that can destroy a person’s life in ways that few people are aware of—until they’ve been prosecuted and deemed a “sexually dangerous person” by the state. This is called civil commitment and can keep a person imprisoned indefinitely without the basis of a new offense.

To help shed light on this shadowy form of incarceration and what can happen to people who have been prosecuted for HIV criminalization, TheBody spoke with two members of the Center for HIV Law and Policy: staff attorney Kae Greenberg (pronouns he/him), and policy and advocacy manager Amir Sadeghi (pronouns he/him).

Robert Suttle: The Prison Policy Initiative recently published, “What Is Civil Commitment?” Can you speak about how it can be applied to HIV criminalization, especially when sex offense has been included in the prosecution?

Amir Sadeghi: I’m so glad we’re talking about this. People across the country have been wrestling with this because 20 states have these laws in place. Civil commitment is a system of civil laws that detain people convicted of certain sex offenses long after serving their criminal sentences. This kind of state custody and detention happens on top of somebody’s criminal sentence.

Suttle: So basically an added punishment after one has “repaid their debt to society.” Some people might look at this and celebrate. How do you talk about this with people who are opposed to eliminating these laws?

Sadeghi: I think about questions that people usually ask prison abolitionists: What are you going to do about sexual violence? What are you going to do about these really hard cases?

I think the most important thing I want to foreground in discussions about sex offense civil commitment is that I don’t downplay the harm of sexual violence. It’s a deeply personal and real thing that happens in our society.

However, it is unclear that detaining people with very little due process has any measurable or meaningful impact on reducing gender-based violence and sexual violence. And actually, there’s been a huge mobilization of survivor-led movements and organizations who have begun to condemn harsh responses that happen in their name. For instance: sex-offense civil commitment, sex-offense registries, detention, and state violence.

I think that the history of laws that punish people long after their criminal sentence via sex-offense civil commitment [comes from] highly publicized cases about sexual violence [and has] motivated politicians and the public to react very strongly against these cases. It has created a very draconian system of facilities that many advocates and people who’ve been in sex-offense civil commitment themselves call shadow prisons.

Kae Greenberg: I want to clarify something about people serving or being punished long after their crimes. People are incarcerated because they have been convicted or have pleaded guilty to a crime. But they are in civil commitment because they have been deemed a potential [risk] of reoffending in some way or incapable of controlling themselves. It’s essentially some dystopian RoboCop or Judge Dredd situation where they’re trying to predict whether or not you will potentially commit a future serious crime and, therefore, lock you away from society just in case.

When we talk about the minimal protections in the criminal justice system, like the standard of proof or reasonable doubt, we know that’s a very high standard, hypothetically. Something that would stop you or cause you to make an important life decision. Civil commitment is a much lower standard of proof; it’s just beyond 50%. We only know a little about what happens in these hearings because they are not open to the public.

What’s used is the speculation of mental health practitioners, and I’m not trying to disparage the mental health community. I’m a big proponent of mental health practitioners, but we’re talking about having someone confined indefinitely for something they “might do.” There is potentially no end to this. It’s until [the state] decides that you’re done.

Suttle: Let’s address the elephant in the room: Nushawn Williams. Where do things stand with his ongoing detainment related to the civil commitment in New York?

Sadeghi: Many people know that the Center for HIV Law and Policy (CHLP) has filed amicus briefs supporting Nushawn Williams in the past. We are a proud member of the Free Nushawn Coalition, which was founded by Brian C. Jones and Davina Connor, who I think a lot of HIV activists know warmly and lovingly.

The New York State Department of Health cooperated with prosecutors in the case to criminalize Nushawn Williams. Why did they do this? Because his HIV status and race were weaponized against him. Newspapers called Nushawn an AIDS monster, an AIDS predator. Then-Mayor [of New York City] Rudy Giuliani said he wanted Nushawn Williams tried for, quote, “attempted murder or worse.” There was a horrific stigmatizing frenzy to lock him up and throw away the key.

Nushawn pled guilty in 1999 to statutory rape and reckless endangerment and served his maximum criminal sentence relating to that plea agreement. But in 2010, his release from Wende Correctional Facility in upstate New York was blocked by then–Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, who filed an Article 10 Mental Hygiene Law petition to have Nushawn civilly committed. I think the frenzy and racist spectacle that was made to paint Nushawn as a monster makes it clear that his HIV status and race are major factors in what the state decided to do.

Editor’s note: An example of this spectacle is that two corrections officers reported that Williams “stated that he intended to continue that behavior [sex without sharing his HIV status] upon his release, specifically referencing underage girls”―an absurd and unlikely contention when one considers that such a statement would expose him to undue scrutiny as well as the very punitive treatment he is currently experiencing. In its explanation for why Williams is still detained, the state lists his prior substance use, sexual offenses, prison record prior to 2006, and his “failure to complete sex offender treatment,” without detailing what completion entails. Taken as a whole, it is clear that the state unfairly views Williams as the person he was when he entered prison 24 years ago.

I would just like to let folks know that Nushawn is still in state custody today, well over a decade beyond his maximum criminal sentence. And there is no end in sight to his civil commitment. Many people, especially people living with HIV, were rightfully dismayed and disturbed by the prosecution and the decision to civilly commit him. That has brought, I think, a lot of energy and activism to addressing the systemic issue of sex-offense civil commitment. For instance, Black men in New York are nearly two times more likely to be civilly committed than white men.

Suttle: When you talk about detainment, this is in a civil commitment facility. How do they look? Are they different from prisons?

Sadeghi: They have iron-clanging doors. They are surrounded by barbed wire. You are heavily surveilled and subjected to constant searches. They look like prisons because they are prisons. And people are not being successfully or meaningfully treated. People are being detained and punished, often as political prisoners.

So, you don’t have a lot of the protections afforded by the safeguards of the criminal legal system because you are not in criminal custody anymore. You are a “patient” being “treated” in a “secured treatment facility.”

Suttle: The idea that this is being done against a person’s will is obviously troubling. But how do you respond to people who diminish treatment for a sexual offense as being “not so bad?”

Greenberg: The idea of sex-offender “treatment” is very complicated. If one meaningfully engages in some treatment and talks about anything that could potentially (A) allude to their being a risk to others or (B) shows they engaged in some other potentially criminal activity, they could find themself facing new charges or extended civil commitment―just because they were trying to engage in this treatment honestly.

Being engaged in this kind of sex-offender rehabilitation and treatment is kind of a sword of Damocles. One needs to engage in it enough socially. But, potentially, if one engages with full force, they might be putting themself at further risk of consequence. I join with Amir in saying I’m not trying to minimize sexual violence or what the victims of sexual violence have gone through. But it also scares me to live in a society where we lock up people for something they haven’t done.

If we want to talk about how this is tied to other systems―they’re trying to roll out all kinds of sentencing algorithms to determine what someone’s bail should be. What’s scary is it’s all about whether there’s a scientific way to decide who will recidivate and essentially plan to punish people for future crimes [they might not commit]. Ruha Benjamin has done a lot of writing about this, showing how racist and awful these algorithms and sentencing are. Civil commitment is tied to other larger systems throughout the criminal legal system.

Suttle: Would you say that’s why marginalized groups or people should be concerned about this?

Sadeghi: Yes. It’s a really important issue at the intersection of criminalizing sex identity, class, race, and beyond. Research by the Williams Institute on sex-offense civil commitment has shown that Black men are two times more likely than their white peers to be civilly committed after they’ve already served their criminal sentences.

If you think about sexual violence and you find yourself overwhelmed with a sense that people are irredeemable and need to be warehoused in a cage indefinitely, I’d like you to reflect on how that same mentality and rhetoric has often been used to justify HIV criminalization. HIV criminalization laws are often defended and justified by arguments that they prevent intimate partner violence and sexual violence.

But, in reality, we know that women living with HIV have higher rates of experiencing sexual violence. And that women living with HIV are overwhelmingly overrepresented in arrests and prosecutions of people targeted because of their health status as people living with HIV. So I think when we recognize the truth about HIV, health, and criminalization, we can start to understand the rationale that has gone into justifying detaining people. And then we can think about how the state has used these instruments to target and punish “undesirable people,” who are often also suffering in the middle of an axis of different kinds of marginalization.

Again, I think it’s important to note that networks of survivors of sexual violence think it’s ridiculous to confront unconsensual acts of violence with unconsensual treatment and state violence. And we have to take that seriously.

Suttle: Going back to Nushawn, is there anything that people can do to support him or get involved in the coalition to end civil commitment in New York?

Sadeghi: There is a burgeoning campaign of sexual survivor–led movements, people living with HIV, and racial justice advocates. If you’re feeling animated and ready to challenge these draconian systems that target and criminalize and incarcerate people, please reach out to us at CHLP. We’d love to work with you to challenge and end sex-offense civil commitment and other harsh policies that target, criminalize, and incarcerate folks who have been historically marginalized.

Suttle: What is your hope for the future of health and human rights for communities most affected by these issues?

Greenberg: To a certain extent, my hope combines two parts of the question. Health is seen as a human role and not limited by access. As awful as things are―following the Dobbs decision―we’ve also been presented with an opportunity to reframe some of these issues. So instead of dealing with individual access, individual rights to privacy, individual concerns, we can reframe them as public health concerns and about a right to health. We’ve been stripped down to the bare bones, but I’m holding on to that right now. In terms of hope, we can build up in a way that will reach and impact people who haven’t previously had access to meaningful health care and health.

Sadeghi: Over the years, I’ve observed that in the face of this kind of injustice and stigma, it is so important to build power from the bottom up and by cross-movement organizing. I think we, as HIV advocates and people working in the HIV anti-criminalization space, really need to deepen our relationships, partnerships, and accountability to sex worker–led groups, advocacy groups, sex work decriminalization groups, racial justice groups, and prison industrial complex (PIC) abolitionists.

To do that, we need to partner with and build power with these very communities and people who are most likely to be criminalized because of their health status. I’m excited about that new direction. I think I feel it in our movement that we are going there. And I’m looking forward to seeing what happens over the next few years.

Robert Suttle: Robert Suttle is a New York City-based advocacy consultant and movement leader in the global HIV community with expertise in decriminalization, human rights, and the intersection between equity and social justice.

New HIV JUSTICE WORLDWIDE website now live!

The new website for the HIV JUSTICE WORLDWIDE (HJWW) coalition is now online, in four languages – English, French, Russian, and Spanish.

HJWW is an international coalition working to shape the discourse on HIV criminalisation, as well as share information and resources, network, build capacity, mobilise advocacy, and cultivate a community of transparency and collaboration.

The HIV Justice Network serves as the secretariat, co-ordinating a global work plan; monitoring laws, prosecutions, and advocacy; providing tools and training for effective advocacy and communications; and connecting and convening a diverse range of stakeholders. With this structure, each coalition member can achieve more mission-aligned impact through their engagement in HJWW.

HJWW was founded in March 2016 during a meeting in Brighton, UK, that was funded by a grant from the Robert Carr Fund. Since then, we have expanded from seven founding partners to our current fourteen coalition members, with more than 130 organisational supporters from around the world. You can see our collective impact by visiting the Milestones page.

The new website – optimised for mobile screens as well as computers and tablets – reflects the work of our expanded coalition. It also provides information and links to websites and key resources explaining what HIV criminalisation is, why we care so much about it, and how you can stay informed and show your support.

Visit and share the new website today. After all, we won’t end AIDS as a public health threat by 2030, or end HIV-related stigma, discrimination and criminalisation without HIV JUSTICE WORLDWIDE!