Spain: Landmark ruling in Spain recognises HIV-based discrimination for the first time

Groundbreaking ruling in Spain recognises HIV discrimination

Translated from Spanish with Deepl.com – Scroll down for original article

  • Cesida, the Legal Clinic of the University of Alcalá and the Fernando Pombo Foundation have achieved an important ruling that recognises for the first time discrimination based on the HIV status of a person.
  • The legal standing in court of social organisations such as CESIDA paves the way for greater protection of the rights of vulnerable people.

Cesida (the Spanish HIV/AIDS Coordinating Committee), the Legal Clinic of the University of Alcalá and the Fernando Pombo Foundation have obtained a pioneering court ruling on equality and non-discrimination based on HIV status in Spain. The case concerned discrimination suffered by a person with HIV in the administrative sphere. Specifically, a resolution of the Directorate General of Traffic (DGT) has been declared null and void on the grounds that it was discriminatory, as it reduced the validity of a citizen’s driving licence by half solely because he or she is living with HIV, without any justification and without following the established procedure.

The Citizens’ Anti-AIDS Commission of Navarre has accompanied “Pedro” throughout the process, providing support and advice from the outset. Their work, like that of other organisations that work directly with people with HIV, is essential to guarantee the defence of the rights of people with HIV and to offer the necessary support in these situations of discrimination. At CESIDA we would like to thank them for their commitment and that of all the organisations that fight against stigma and inequality every day.

Active legitimisation of social organisations

The case shows how social organisations such as CESIDA can better defend people in vulnerable situations under Law 15/2022 of 12 July, which is comprehensive for equal treatment and non-discrimination.

Oliver Marcos, general secretary of CESIDA, declared: ‘This ruling is a crucial step in the defence of the rights of people with HIV. There is still much to be done, but we are firmly committed to continuing to fight against the stigmatisation and discrimination suffered by people with HIV in our society.’

The active legitimisation of social organisations is a key channel for those who, due to their vulnerable situation, do not want to or cannot appear in a judicial process. Social organisations assume their legal representation by exercising their right to effective judicial protection without the affected person having to be part of the process, their authorisation being sufficient. In this way, the role of the third sector is reinforced when the organisations have among their aims the defence and promotion of human rights, without extending the scope to abstract or media defences without real content.

In this case, the person who felt that their right to equal treatment had been violated consulted the DGT’s decision with CESIDA. Three students, tutored by two professors, from the Legal Clinic of the University of Alcalá, which has collaborated with CESIDA for many years, considered that this could be a case of direct discrimination based on serological status. The Legal Clinic of the UAH then contacted the Fernando Pombo Foundation, which promotes and coordinates pro bono legal advice projects to improve the rule of law. The Fernando Pombo Foundation considered that this was a strategic issue for the achievement of its aims and also involved a team of pro bono lawyers from the law firm Gómez-Acebo & Pombo, and together they planned the legal strategy.

Ana Higuera, director of the Fernando Pombo Foundation, emphasises that ‘for us, participating in the defence of this case has been a stimulus for our mission. The admission of the claim by CESIDA, without the need for individual visibility of the person with HIV, represents a key advance in the legal approach to avoiding discrimination that, although not always visible, is real. Furthermore, the judgement’s analysis of how the discrimination occurred is clear and direct, which I consider essential to raise awareness of real situations of discrimination and differentiate them from others in which differential treatment is appropriate. In this sense, I believe that the judgement is educational and useful’.

This is one of the first cases in which, in accordance with Law 15/2022, the legitimacy of an association constituted for the purpose of defending human rights is recognised to combat a situation of discrimination in the field of public law.

The sentence: discrimination based on serological status in the renewal of a driving licence

On 24 October 2022, the DGT (Directorate General of Traffic) informed Pedro (not his real name) that his driving licence had been renewed for half the normal period (5 years instead of 10) and the only apparent reason was that he had disclosed during the medical check-up that he had HIV and was taking the corresponding antiretroviral treatment, without this affecting his ability to drive in any way.

Although the limitation on renewal may not be very relevant, the interest of the case lies in the recurrence with which situations similar to this one occur every day in the lives of people with HIV, who continue to be stigmatised despite advances in the treatment and prevention of transmission of the virus thanks to the efficacy and safety of antiretroviral drugs. Faced with this decision by the DGT, Pedro authorised CESIDA to lodge an appeal, which was possible thanks to the provisions of article 29 of Law 15/2022, which introduces the active legitimation of social entities with certain requirements.

Once the evidence had been presented and the arguments put forward by the team of pro bono lawyers from the law firm Gómez-Acebo & Pombo defending CESIDA’s claim, the Administrative Court ruled in favour of CESIDA and annulled the DGT’s decision on the grounds that it was discriminatory. This ruling is a pioneering pronouncement in our country. It literally says:

‘But discrimination occurs in several ways. The applicant is discriminated against when the procedure established in article 44.3 of the General Drivers Regulations is not followed. The applicant is discriminated against when, on appeal, the provision established in section 13 of Annex IV itself is not taken into account, according to which ‘except if the interested party accompanies a favourable medical opinion’, a report that appears on page 10 of the administrative file indicating that ‘the influence of Dovato on the ability to drive and use machines is nil or insignificant (see technical data sheet)’. The applicant is discriminated against when the decision adopted is a flat-out one, as evidenced by the fact that the administrative file begins with the applicant’s complaint, which is classified as an appeal, with no record of any previous action.

The renewal applicant is treated differently, as the established general rule (renewal for a period of ten years) does not apply to him. It is done because he is HIV positive, without any justification and without following the procedure that, in any case, would be established for this purpose.’

After the sentence was handed down, the DGT has already sent Pedro his new driving licence for the general period, without exceptions, having also notified the finality of the sentence a few days ago.

A precedent against discrimination based on serological status

Miguel Ángel Ramiro, coordinator of the Legal Clinic of the University of Alcalá, emphasised that ‘This case sets an important precedent in Spain as it is a pioneering ruling against discrimination based on HIV status, as well as for the recognition of the standing of social organisations’. And he added: ‘The participation of our students in this process has been key. Not only have they learned about applicable legal norms and procedural issues, but they have also contributed to the fight for equality and social justice, a fundamental aspect in the training of future professionals.’

Oliver Marcos, general secretary of Cesida, emphasised: ‘We encourage people with HIV to turn to associations when they feel their rights have been violated, showing that in this way changes are achieved. In addition, we place special emphasis on the fact that public administrations should be the guarantors of equality and avoid this type of discrimination in any area within their competence.’

Sentencia pionera en España reconoce la discriminación por el VIH

  • Cesida, la Clínica Legal de la Universidad de Alcalá y la Fundación Fernando Pombo logran una importante sentencia que reconoce por primera vez la discriminación por razón del estado serológico de una persona con el VIH.
  • La legitimación activa ante los tribunales de entidades sociales como CESIDA abre el camino a una mayor protección de los derechos de las personas en situación de vulnerabilidad.

Cesida (Coordinadora Estatal de VIH y sida), la Clínica Legal de la Universidad de Alcalá y la Fundación Fernando Pombo han obtenido un pronunciamiento judicial pionero en materia de igualdad y no discriminación por razón del estado serológico en España. El proceso ha enjuiciado la discriminación sufrida por una persona con el VIH en el ámbito administrativo. En concreto, se ha declarado la nulidad de una resolución de la Dirección General de Tráfico (DGT) por entender que la misma era discriminatoria ya que reducía la vigencia del permiso de conducción de un ciudadano a la mitad únicamente porque vive con el VIH, sin motivación alguna y con ausencia del procedimiento que, en todo caso, está establecido para ello.

La Comisión Ciudadana Antisida de Navarra ha acompañado a «Pedro» durante todo el proceso, brindándole apoyo y asesoramiento desde el primer momento. Su labor, al igual que la de otras entidades que trabajan directamente con personas con el VIH, es esencial para garantizar la defensa de los derechos de las personas con el VIH y ofrecer el respaldo necesario ante estas situaciones de discriminación. Desde CESIDA queremos agradecer su compromiso y el de todas las organizaciones que día a día luchan contra el estigma y la desigualdad.

Legitimación activa de las entidades sociales

El caso muestra cómo las organizaciones del ámbito social como CESIDA pueden defender mejor a personas en situación de vulnerabilidad en virtud de la Ley 15/2022, de 12 de julio, integral para la igualdad de trato y la no discriminación.

Oliver Marcos, secretario general de CESIDA, declaró: “Esta sentencia es un paso crucial en la defensa de los derechos de las personas con el VIH. Aún queda mucho por hacer, pero tenemos el firme compromiso de seguir luchando contra la estigmatización y la discriminación que sufrimos las personas con la infección por el VIH en nuestra sociedad.”

La legitimación activa de las entidades sociales resulta una vía clave para aquellas personas que por estar en una situación de vulnerabilidad no quieren o no pueden personarse en un proceso judicial. Las organizaciones sociales asumen su representación legal ejerciendo su derecho a la tutela judicial efectiva sin que la persona afectada tenga que formar parte del proceso, bastando su autorización. De este modo, se refuerza el papel del tercer sector cuando las organizaciones tengan entre sus fines la defensa y promoción de los derechos humanos, sin que se amplíen los ámbitos a defensas abstractas o mediáticas sin contenido real.

En este caso, la persona que sintió vulnerado su derecho a la igualdad de trato consultó con CESIDA la decisión de la DGT. Tres estudiantes, tutorizados por dos profesores, de la Clínica Legal de la Universidad de Alcalá, que colabora desde hace muchos años con CESIDA, consideraron que podría tratarse de un supuesto de discriminación directa por razón del estado serológico. La Clínica Legal de la UAH contactó entonces con la Fundación Fernando Pombo, que impulsa y coordina proyectos de asesoramiento jurídico pro bono para mejorar el Estado de Derecho. La Fundación Fernando Pombo consideró que se trataba de un tema estratégico para la consecución de sus fines e involucró también un equipo de abogados pro bono del despacho Gómez-Acebo & Pombo, y juntos planificaron la estrategia jurídica.

Ana Higuera, directora de la Fundación Fernando Pombo, destaca que “para nosotros participar en la defensa de este caso ha sido un estímulo para nuestra misión. La admisión de la reclamación por CESIDA, sin necesidad de una visibilidad individual de la persona con el VIH, representa un avance clave en el enfoque jurídico para evitar discriminaciones que, aunque no siempre son visibles, son reales. Además, el análisis que realiza la sentencia sobre cómo se ha producido la discriminación es claro y directo, lo que considero fundamental para concienciar sobre situaciones reales de discriminación y diferenciarlas de otras en las que el trato diferenciado es adecuado. En este sentido, creo que la sentencia es pedagógica y útil”.

Se trata de uno de los primeros casos que, conforme a la Ley 15/2022, se reconoce la legitimación de una asociación constituida con el fin de defender los derechos humanos para combatir una situación de discriminación en el ámbito del Derecho público.

La sentencia: discriminación por estado serológico en la renovación del permiso de conducir

El 24 de octubre de 2022 la DGT comunicó a Pedro (nombre ficticio) la renovación de su permiso de conducción reducida a la mitad de tiempo (5 años en lugar de 10) y la única razón aparente fue que éste comunicó en la revisión médica que tenía el VIH y tomaba el correspondiente tratamiento antirretroviral, sin que esto afectará en modo alguno a su capacidad de conducir.

Aunque la limitación de la renovación pudiera resultar poco relevante, el interés del caso está en la recurrencia con que situaciones similares a ésta se producen todos los días en la vida de las personas con el VIH, que siguen siendo estigmatizadas a pesar de los avances en el tratamiento y la prevención de la transmisión del virus gracias a la eficacia y seguridad de los fármacos antirretrovirales. Ante esta decisión de la DGT, Pedro autorizó a CESIDA a interponer un recurso contencioso-administrativo, lo que pudo hacerse gracias a la previsión del artículo 29 de la Ley 15/2022 que introduce la legitimación activa de las entidades sociales con ciertos requisitos.

Una vez practicada la prueba y expuestos los argumentos por el equipo de abogados pro bono del despacho Gómez-Acebo & Pombo que defendían la pretensión de CESIDA, el Juzgado de lo contencioso-administrativo falló en favor de CESIDA y ha anulado la resolución de la DGT por entender que la misma es discriminatoria. Esta sentencia es un pronunciamiento pionero en nuestro país. Textualmente dice:

“Pero es que la discriminación se produce de varias maneras. Se discrimina al solicitante al no seguirse el procedimiento establecido en el artículo 44.3 del Reglamento General de Conductores. Se discrimina al solicitante cuando en vía de recurso no se tiene en cuenta la previsión establecida en el propio apartado 13 del Anexo IV conforme a la que “excepto si el interesado acompaña un dictamen facultativo favorable”, informe que consta en el folio 10 del expediente administrativo en el que se indica que “la influencia del Dovato sobre la capacidad de conducir y utilizar máquinas es nula o insignificante (consultar ficha técnica)”. Se discrimina al solicitante cuando la decisión adoptada lo es de plano, como acredita el que el expediente administrativo se inicia con la reclamación del solicitante que se califica como recurso de alzada, sin que conste ninguna actuación previa.

Se trata de forma diferente al solicitante de la renovación, al que no se aplica la norma general establecida (renovación por plazo de diez años), se hace por su condición de seropositivo, sin motivación alguna y con ausencia del procedimiento que, en todo caso, estaría establecido para ello.”

Después de recibirse la sentencia, la DGT ya ha enviado a Pedro su nuevo permiso de conducir por el período general, sin excepciones, habiéndose, además notificado la firmeza de la sentencia hace unos días.

Un precedente contra la discriminación por razón del estado serológico

Miguel Ángel Ramiro, coordinador de la Clínica Legal de la Universidad de Alcalá, recalcó “Este caso sienta un precedente importante en España al ser un pronunciamiento pionero contra la discriminación por razón del estado serológico; así como para el reconocimiento de la legitimación activa de las entidades sociales”. Y añadió: “La participación de nuestros estudiantes en este proceso ha sido clave. No solo han aprendido sobre normas jurídicas aplicables y cuestiones procedimentales, sino que también han contribuido a la lucha por la igualdad y la justicia social, un aspecto fundamental en la formación de futuros profesionales.”

Oliver Marcos, secretario general de Cesida, enfatizó: “Animamos a las personas con el VIH a acudir a las asociaciones cuando sientan vulnerados sus derechos, evidenciando que de esta manera se logran cambios. Además, hacemos especial hincapié en que las administraciones públicas deben ser las garantes de la igualdad y evitar este tipo de discriminación en cualquier ámbito de su competencia.”

UK Parliamentary Reception Marks HIV Is Not A Crime Awareness Day

On Wednesday, 26th February, the HIV Justice Network (HJN) co-hosted a parliamentary reception in the UK Parliament in collaboration with the All-Party Parliamentary Group on HIV, AIDS and Sexual Health (APPGA) and the UK’s National AIDS Trust (NAT). The event, held to mark HIV Is Not A Crime Awareness Day, underscored the urgent need to combat HIV criminalisation in an era of rising global anti-rights movements and shrinking HIV funding.

Baroness Barker, Co-Chair of the APPGA, opened the event, acknowledging the significance of addressing HIV criminalisation within the broader context of human rights and public health.

The Global Scale of HIV Criminalisation

HJN’s Executive Director, Edwin J Bernard, was the first speaker, offering insights into the global state of HIV criminalisation, with a particular focus on Commonwealth countries. He highlighted key issues, including:

  • HIV criminalisation is state-sponsored stigma It punishes people living with HIV for acts that wouldn’t be crimes if they were HIV-negative, perpetuating discrimination and undermining public health efforts.
  • The scale of injustice is vast At least 80 countries have HIV-specific criminal laws, and prosecutions have taken place in at least 90 countries, with Commonwealth nations lagging in law reform.
  • Progress is happening, but remains under threat While 17 countries have reformed their laws, critical funding cuts jeopardise continued advocacy and reform efforts.
  • Sustained investment is essential Law reform takes time, and without long-term, flexible funding, the progress made could be reversed, leaving the most marginalised at risk.
  • The time to act is now Policymakers, funders, and advocates must step up to support efforts to end HIV criminalisation and ensure justice for people living with HIV.

Read the full text of his remarks here: HJN Executive Director’s Speech.

[Show picture list] Photos: Aditi Sharma

Insights from the UK: NAT’s New Report on HIV Criminalisation

Daniel Fluskey, Director of Policy, Research, and Influencing at NAT, presented key findings from NAT’s recently published report, Criminalisation of HIV Transmission: Understanding the Impact (read the report). The report offers several urgent recommendations for reform, including:

  • U=U should be central to legal considerations If an individual has an undetectable viral load, no investigation should take place.
  • Reckless transmission cases can force disclosure Legal proceedings can place individuals in unsafe situations, potentially exposing them to stigma and harm.
  • Police need comprehensive training Investigations must be fair, informed, and necessary to prevent unnecessary criminalisation.
  • Voluntary attendance should replace arrest Arrest should not be the default approach when investigating HIV-related cases.
  • All stakeholders must receive training Including people living with HIV, support staff, and clinicians, to ensure a more informed legal and healthcare environment.

A Personal Story: The Impact of Criminalisation

The event featured a powerful testimony from a man who was unjustly arrested for a crime that never existed—there was no risk, no harm. As a police officer himself, he never imagined he would experience such a humiliating and disproportionate arrest. Multiple officers arrived at his home and charged him with ‘attempted grievous bodily harm’ without explanation or the chance to respond. 

It was only 20 hours into his unlawful detention, during disclosure before his interview, that he was finally told why he had been arrested. At that point, he disclosed his U=U status – evidence that should have prevented his arrest in the first place.

Although he was never formally charged, the case was eventually dismissed as “Entered in Error” after a review of his medical records. Yet, the arrest remains on his record, casting a shadow over his career and deeply impacting his mental health.

“I did nothing wrong,” he concluded, “yet I am still fighting for justice.”

The Forgotten Impact of Past Prosecutions

Sophie Strachan, Director of Sophia Forum, shared her own experience of being diagnosed with HIV while in prison more than two decades ago. She also highlighted the case of the first woman prosecuted in England & Wales for ‘reckless’ HIV transmission. Convicted in 2006 and sentenced to 32 months in prison, she was vilified by the media for a ‘crime’ that would not be prosecuted today under current guidelines.

Nearly 20 years later, this woman remains deeply affected by her conviction. Despite wanting to move forward, her criminal record has made it impossible for her to work or even volunteer. “She is a virtual recluse, terrified that people will still recognise her,” Sophie explained. Her case remains a stark reminder of the lasting impact of unjust prosecutions.

Building Momentum for Change

The reception was attended by members of the UK House of Commons and House of Lords, as well as representatives from UK and international NGOs, philanthropic funders, and advocates working to end HIV criminalisation worldwide.

The discussions reinforced the urgent need for continued advocacy, law reform, and investment to end the unjust criminalisation of people living with HIV. As our Executive Director emphasised: HIV is not a crime. The time to act is now.

HJN’s Executive Director’s remarks at the UK Parliamentary event commemorating HIV is Not a Crime Awareness Day

Today, on HIV Is Not A Crime Awareness Day, we are here to confront a grave injustice: HIV criminalisation. HIV criminalisation is not a public health tool, it is a human rights violation. It is state-sponsored stigma in its most extreme form.

We are here because people living with HIV are being jailed – even when there was no possibility of transmission – for not being able to prove they disclosed their status. We are here because women with HIV are being prosecuted for breastfeeding, simply for wanting to nourish their children. We are here because HIV criminalisation is never just about HIV.

People living with HIV are often targeted not only for their status but because of who they are, who they love, or how they survive—whether they are LGBTQ+, sex workers, migrants, or belong to other marginalised communities. HIV criminalisation is a proxy for deeper discrimination—rooted in racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, and xenophobia. The harshest punishments fall on those at the intersection of multiple stigmas. That’s why our fight must be intersectional and collaborative—because justice for people living with HIV is justice for all.

Our Global HIV Criminalisation Database reveals the scale of the problem:

  • 80 countries have HIV-specific criminal laws.
  • 90 countries have unjustly prosecuted people living with HIV, many of them applying general criminal laws.

But there is hope. Seventeen countries have repealed or reformed their HIV laws in the past decade. Change is happening. Yet, our latest analysis – undertaken by our Policy Analyst, Elliot Hatt – shows that the Commonwealth is falling behind global law reform trends. We cannot let this continue.

18 Commonwealth countries have HIV-specific laws, with four country hot-spots – Canada, the UK, India, and Singapore – accounting for nearly 80% of prosecutions across the Commonwealth.

At the HIV Justice Network, we don’t just highlight the problems – we drive solutions. We connect and support activists. We equip communities with tools, available for free in multiple languages through the HIV Justice Academy.

And we share success stories—like Zimbabwe, where we fought to repeal HIV criminalisation in 2022 and prevented its return in 2024.  We will be launching our documentary and toolkit analysing how this was possible in a webinar co-hosted with the International AIDS Society next Wednesday, March 5th.  (Register here)

So you see, HIV decriminalisation is possible, even in challenging political environments.

But it takes:

  • Community leadership—because change starts and ends with those most affected.
  • Parliamentary action—because laws don’t change without political will.
  • Global coordination—because no-one can fight this battle alone.
  • Sustained funding—because without resources, progress stalls.

We are deeply grateful to the Robert Carr Fund for supporting us over the past nine years, ensuring that the fight for HIV justice has borne fruit. But let me be clear—this fight is far from over.

With the United States and the Netherlands withdrawing their support, we are especially grateful to the UK government for its unwavering support of the Fund. But we are at a crossroads. The survival of the Fund, and the HIV Justice movement – of the organisations, networks, and communities working tirelessly to end HIV criminalisation – is now at risk.

This is not just a funding gap. This is a threat to progress.

Law reform does not happen overnight. It requires sustained, long-term, and flexible funding to build the momentum needed to dismantle unjust laws and systems that have oppressed people living with HIV for decades.

Without continued investment, we risk losing the gains we’ve fought so hard for. We risk silencing the voices of those on the frontlines. We risk leaving the most vulnerable people behind, afraid to access HIV services and to live fulfilling lives in dignity.

So, thank you for your support. And thank you to those funders in the room who understand that HIV is not a crime, and that real, lasting change takes time.

Advocacy, movement-building, and legal reform are not quick wins—but they are essential. If we want to achieve HIV justice worldwide then we must ensure that this work continues. The future of the HIV response – and the lives of 40 million people – depends on it.

Mexico: Legislative progress expected on HIV decriminalisation bill in the State of Mexico

Repeal of the offence of ‘Danger of contagion’ is still pending in the legislature

The repeal of the offence of risk of transmission in the state territory is still pending on the local legislative agenda, said the president of the Network of Diverse Defenders of the State of Mexico, Jorge Leonardo Espinoza López.

The activist recalled that last year, in the framework of the International Day of the Fight Against AIDS, the deputy Luisa Esmeralda Navarro Hernández, Meme Nava, presented to the local Legislature a bill to reform section V of article 238 and repeal the second paragraph of article 241 and article 252 of the Penal Code of the State of Mexico, related to the risk of contagion, which is the criminalisation or criminalisation of people living with HIV who, by omission or action, transmit the virus to another person.

They argue that people are stigmatised

Espinoza López said that several sexual diversity associations in the state are seeking the repeal of this article of the State of Mexico Penal Code, as it stigmatises people living with this condition ‘it inhibits people from wanting to be diagnosed because they will be criminalised, even stigmatised by their partner or family’.

The president of the Network of Diverse Defenders of the State of Mexico suggests that once the crime of danger of contagion has been repealed, it will be possible to improve sex education and more and more people from diverse communities will approach health services.

Espinoza López mentioned that the initiative presented by Meme Nava is already being analysed by the respective parliamentary commissions, so they hope that the issue can progress this legislative year, and that the crime of danger of contagion will soon be annulled, as happened in Mexico City in 2024.

There is a willingness to abort the issue of repealing the crime of ‘danger of contagion’.

He recognised that the legislators of the State of Mexico have shown a willingness to address this issue, and therefore said he was confident that, as in the previous legislature, the demands of the diversity community would be heard on issues that have been in dispute for many years.

Finally, Espinoza López said that in addition to the issue of repealing the crime of danger of contagion, there are other pending issues such as the recognition of trans children and adolescents, the recognition of non-binary people, the creation of a specialised prosecutor’s office to attend to people of sexual diversity and the trans labour quota.

US: Lawmakers approve bill to reform HIV transmission laws in Maryland

Bills to repeal ‘antiquated’ law criminalizing transfer of HIV sail through House, Senate

Repeal supporters call current law discriminatory and ineffective at stopping spread of HIV.

Legislation that would remove a criminal penalty for intentionally transferring HIV to another person sailed through both the House and Senate chambers this week, garnering bipartisan support in the process.

That might be a surprise to some. In fact, Sen. Will Smith (D-Montgomery), who chairs the Judicial Proceedings Committee, said he was skeptical of the legislation when it first came to his committee last year. He ended up sponsoring the Senate version this year.

“I’ve had reservations on it. I, frankly, was not comfortable with it initially, and that’s because I didn’t understand the scope of how things are actually playing out,” Smith said Tuesday, after the Senate passed Senate Bill 356.

Smith and other supporters say the current law is counterproductive, antiquated and discriminatory. Repealing it would not only help destigmatize those living with HIV, the virus that causes AIDS, but could actually help improve public health, they say.

“The law was, for right or wrong, thought to help curb the transmission of HIV,” said Del. Kris Fair (D-Frederick), who sponsored House Bill 39. “What public health experts and criminal justice organizations have taught us … is that we’ve actually seen the exact opposite.”

The Senate passed its version of the bill 33-11 on Tuesday, picking up two Republican votes. The House version passed 100-36 on Thursday, also picking up a couple Republican votes. One of the bills must still be passed by the other chamber before it can be sent to the governor for his signature, but with each chamber already passing a bill, the legislation is in good shape.

Since 1989, during the height of the AIDS crisis, Maryland has said that “an individual who has the human immunodeficiency virus may not knowingly transfer or attempt to transfer the human immunodeficiency virus to another individual.” A violation is a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine up to $2,500 or up to three years in prison.

Fair says the law actually hinders public health efforts, “causing people not to get tested, to stigmatize people living with HIV, criminalized otherwise rather innocuous behavior … that would have nothing to do with the transmission or potential transmission of HIV.”

Currently, people living with HIV “walk around on a day-to-day basis with this weird Sword of Damocles hanging over their heads. This code basically dictates their day-to-day lives,” Fair said.

“Because of the way that it’s written, because of the way it’s interpreted and because of the way it’s used by law enforcement and by the criminal justice system, innocuous day-to-day interactions that could be physical in nature or not, suddenly get applied to this code,” he said.

Fair said that the charge can be misused. He said that there have been situations where people with HIV have been charged after spitting on or biting someone, even though HIV does not spread through saliva. He also said that people can weaponize the law.

“A few examples include relationships that have soured – two consenting individuals were in a consensual sexual relationship,” he said. “But they had some kind of falling out, and then one person goes and files charges against their former partner because they’re mad at them … they’re stuck having this criminal charge levied against them.”

According to a report from the Williams Institute, there have only been 148 HIV-related charges in Maryland from 2000-2020, when the first HIV-related charge was issued in Maryland to the most recent charge as of 2024. The Williams Institute reports that more than 80% of the cases in that timeframe were dropped.

“It’s such an ineffective and misused tool,” Fair said. Despite that, efforts to repeal the law have been more than a decade in the making. Del. Shirley Nathan-Pulliam (D-Baltimore City and Baltimore County) introduced the first version of the bill in 2013.

“As a nurse, she recognized the way that this kind of criminalization of the day-to-day lives of Marylanders further stigmatizes the issue around HIV and actually frustrated public health efforts to reduce the transmission,” Fair said.

Fair took up the effort in 2023, when it passed the House for thei first time, but did not move in the Senate.

When the bill came up last year, Smith let it die in his committee.

“I was uncomfortable with it,” he said. “This was just not high up on the ledger. So I didn’t move on it.”

A year later, Smith is on board with the legislation and agreed to sponsor it because he believes the current law is “very discriminatory.”

“No other communicable disease was pulled out separately,” he said of the law that he said was “skewed towards, frankly, Black men.”

He also added that there are other charges, such as reckless endangerment, that are more appropriate to use in the case of someone maliciously spreading HIV.

“For me it was a way to say, ‘We can get rid of this antiquated thing that was really created for discriminatory practice,’ and also treat all of these dangerous communicable disease the same way,” Smith said.

US: Lawmakers support bill to update HIV transmission charges in North Dakota

North Dakota House votes to repeal ‘discriminatory’ HIV law

With a 50-43 vote, the House passed a bill to downgrade the crime of intentional HIV transmission from a felony to a misdemeanor, aligning the charge with other intentional disease transmission.

The criminal charge associated with knowingly infecting someone with HIV could change in North Dakota after lawmakers voted Wednesday, Feb. 19, to downgrade the crime from a felony charge to a misdemeanor.

According to state law, HIV is the only infectious disease that carries a felony charge if it is knowingly transmitted to another person.

Those found guilty of doing so face 20 years in prison and a $20,000 fine, while knowingly infecting someone with any other sexually transmitted disease is punishable by a fine up to $1,000.

House Bill 1217 would move the penalty for spreading HIV to the same misdemeanor class as other sexually transmitted diseases.

Bill sponsor Gretchen Dobervich, D-Fargo, said in a House Human Services hearing on the bill that the existing law, which was enacted in the 1980s, is discriminatory against people with HIV.

Dobervich added that in 35 years of the law being in effect, no one has been prosecuted.

“There has been a lot of discussion on this bill, and one of the things that keeps coming up is that HIV can be terminal. And it can — so can a lot of other infectious diseases,” she said. “This bill reflects the tremendous body of evidence that modernizing HIV laws decreases the risk of HIV, as people who are at risk of HIV are more likely to seek testing.”

There was no further discussion on the House floor before lawmakers passed the bill with a 50-43 vote, sending it to the Senate for consideration.

The state Department of Health and Human Services, American Civil Liberties Union and representatives of two health care clinics voiced support for the bill in its hearing. There was no opposing testimony.

Mexico: Criminalisation of HIV in Tamaulipas has a negative impact on public health

Danger of contagion: Tamaulipas criminalizes people with HIV

Translated with Deepl.com – Scroll down for original article in Spanish

The offence that penalises HIV carriers who have sexual contact with others is still in force. Morena has not supported the initiative to repeal it presented by deputy Magaly Deandar.

Tamaulipas criminalises and stigmatises people with HIV or any other disease considered ‘contagious’, ‘incurable’ or a ‘bad gene’. The offence of risk of transmission, a measure that punishes the risk of spreading a virus with imprisonment, is still in force.

The Penal Code of Tamaulipas maintains this offence with penalties ranging from six months to three years in prison. In twenty-five other states in Mexico, the penalties include the impediment to marry, denial of custody of one’s children and financial fines.

State law stipulates that a person who knowingly carries a venereal disease or HIV in an infectious period and who puts another person at risk of infection through sexual relations commits the offence of danger of contagion. In the case of spouses or cohabiting partners, the offence only proceeds if the offended party files a complaint.

In particular, article 203 of the Penal Code of Tamaulipas punishes HIV carriers. In a large part of the country, the ‘danger of contagion’ sanctions other sexually transmitted diseases.

Criminalisation encourages discrimination

According to the Mexican Network of Organisations against the Criminalisation of HIV, the criminalisation of the ‘risk of HIV transmission’ or similar concepts that appear in the legislation of the federal states generate more harm than benefits in terms of impact on public health.

This criminalisation undermines respect for and guarantees of human rights by promoting fear, stigma and discrimination, reinforcing the idea that people living with HIV or AIDS are criminals, dangerous and immoral.

The organisation points to the criminalisation of HIV patients, turning carriers into both victim and perpetrator. Focusing efforts on judging and punishing rather than promoting the prevention of contagion.

Tamaulipas seeks to decriminalise the danger of contagion

In 2022, deputy Magaly Deandar Robinson presented an initiative to repeal Article 203 in the Tamaulipas Congress. The Morenista argued that this measure violates human rights rather than recognising the institutional vacuum on the part of the public health service.

‘More than a question of laws, it is a question of human rights. That is how it should be for everyone,’ the legislator for Reynosa explained in an interview for Elefante Blanco,

Despite international recommendations from organisations such as the United Nations (UN), this proposal was rejected by the Morena majority. However, Deandar Robinson emphasised, the state congress could take it up for a second time in the next three months.

Magaly Deandar recognised that although this illicit act sought to stop the HIV pandemic, it ended up criminalising and making it difficult for people and carriers to approach specialised care centres.

‘It is the perfect time to reactivate the government to carry out HIV prevention tasks,’ she added.

In 2024, Mexico City, Nayarit, Jalisco, Aguascalientes, San Luis Potosí and Tabasco removed the danger of contagion from their penal codes.

Peligro de contagio: Tamaulipas criminaliza a personas con VIH

El delito que sanciona a las personas portadoras de VIH que tienen contacto sexual con otras sigue vigente. Morena no ha acompañado la iniciativa para derogarlo presentada por la diputada Magaly Deandar.

Tamaulipas criminaliza y estigmatiza a personas con VIH o alguna otra enfermedad considerada «contagiosa», «incurable» o un «mal venero». El delito de peligro de contagio, medida que castiga con cárcel el riesgo de propagación de un virus, sigue vigente.

El Código Penal de Tamaulipas mantiene este ilícito con penas que van de los seis meses a tres años de prisión. En otros veinticinco estados de México, las penas incluyen el impedimento para casarse, negar la custodia de sus hijos y multas económicas.

La ley estatal estipula que comete peligro de contagio la persona con conocimiento de ser portador de un mal venéreo o VIH en periodo infectante y que pone en riesgo de contagio a otra mediante relaciones sexuales. En el caso de cónyuges o concubinos, el delito procede únicamente si él o la agraviada lo denuncia.

De manera particular, el articulo 203 del Código Penal de Tamaulipas castiga a portadores de VIH. En gran parte del territorio nacional, el “peligro de contagio” sanciona otras enfermedades de transmisión sexual.

Criminalización fomenta la discriminación

De acuerdo con la Red Mexicana de Organizaciones contra la Criminalización del VIH, la penalización del “riesgo de contagio del VIH” o figuras análogas que aparezcan en las legislaciones de las entidades federativas generan más daños que beneficios en términos de impacto en la salud pública.

Esta penalización atenta contra el respeto y garantía de los derechos humanos al promover el miedo, el estigma y la discriminación, fortaleciendo la idea de que quien vive con VIH o SIDA es criminal, peligroso e inmoral.

Dicha organización señala la criminalización de la que son víctimas los pacientes con VIH al convertir al portador en víctima y victimario. Centrando los esfuerzos en juzgar y castigar en lugar de fomentar la prevención del contagio.

Tamaulipas busca despenalizar el peligro de contagio

En 2022, la diputada Magaly Deandar Robinson presentó una iniciativa para derogar dicho el artículo 203 en el Congreso de Tamaulipas. La morenista argumentó que esta medida vulnera los derechos humanos antes que reconocer el vacío institucional por parte del servicio de salud publica.

“Más que un tema de leyes, es un tema de derechos humanos. Así debería de ser para todos”, explicó la legisladora por Reynosa en entrevista para Elefante Blanco,

Pese a las recomendaciones internacionales por organismos como la Organización de las Naciones Unidas (ONU), esta propuesta fue rechazada por la mayoría de Morena. Sin embargo, enfatizó Deandar Robinson, el Congreso estatal podría retomarla por segunda ocasión en los próximos tres meses.

Magaly Deandar reconoció que aunque esta ilícito buscó frenar la pandemia por VIH, terminó por criminalizar y dificultar el acercamiento de las personas y portadores a los centro de atención especializados.

“Es el tiempo perfecto para reactivar al gobierno para realizar tareas de prevención contra el VIH”, agregó.

En 2024, Ciudad de México, Nayarit, Jalisco, Aguascalientes, San Luis Potosí y Tabasco retiraron el peligro de contagio de sus códigos penales.

 

US: Senator introduces bill to decriminalise HIV in Pennsylvania

Pennsylvania bill calls for decriminalization of HIV

HARRISBURG, Pa. (WTAJ) — A member of the Senate announced plans to introduce legislation that would decriminalize HIV in the Commonwealth.

The bill, authored by Senator Vincent Hughes (D – Montgomery, Philadelphia), would end criminal penalties based on someone having the HIV virus. Hughes argued that in Pennsylvania, people living with HIV have been prosecuted under laws for conduct that would not be seen as a crime because of the virus.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) published information regarding risk factors involved with HIV transmission, which worked to dispel the myth that HIV can be transmitted through saliva. Hughes noted that the CDC’s work shows that activities like oral sex or spitting present a low or negligible risk of HIV transmission.

Within the published works, the CDC also noted that condoms and pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) are effective in preventing the transmission of HIV.

In Pennsylvania prostitution is typically a misdemeanor, however, people living with HIV who are charged can face felonies as well, even if the transmission would not be possible because either no physical contact occurred or the nature of the contact was not a method of transmission. Criminalization laws for HIV do not reflect the science around prevention, transmission and treatment but instead stigmatize people living with the virus, Hughes noted in his legislation.

The Commonwealth could also face legal challenges if laws on discrimination, with Hughes noting that in 2023 the Department of Justice issued findings that Tennessee is violating the Americans with Disabilities Act by enforcing its aggravated prostitution law.

In 2023, a presumed 36,302 Pennsylvania residents were living with HIV. The overall HIV rate in the Commonwealth in 2022 was 7.2 per 100,000 population, with counties like Berks, Dauphin, Delaware, Lackawanna, Lehigh and Philadelphia seeing an increase. Philadelphia was noted to have the highest rate of 25 per 100,000 population.

From 2018 through 2023, 49,620 men were recorded to have characteristics of HIV which led to a diagnosis, with women accounting for 15,979 diagnoses. There were 229 late diagnoses in 2023, however, over 600 people were diagnosed on time or early.

US: New report from the Williams Institute on the enforcement of Indiana’s HIV-related body fluid laws

US: Enforcement of HIV Criminalization in Indiana: Body Fluid/Waste Enhancement Laws

Using data obtained from the Indiana Office of Court Services, online court-tracking tools, and Probable Cause Affidavits, this study examines the enforcement of Indiana’s HIV-related body fluid laws.

Overview

The Williams Institute examined arrest and court records from Indiana regarding people living with HIV (PLWH) who were prosecuted for an alleged HIV-related body fluid exposure crime. Indiana has six laws criminalizing PLWH spanning both the criminal and health codes. This report—one in a series examining HIV criminalization in Indiana—analyzes the enforcement of HIV-related body fluid/ waste penalty enhancements between 2012 and 2023.1 Almost all charges under these two statutes involved bodily fluids (such as saliva and urine) and conduct (such as spitting and coughing) that do not transmit HIV. None of the charges involved an allegation that HIV was actually transmitted.

  • IC § 35-42-2-1(c2)(f)(h), Battery by Bodily Fluid or Waste, creates penalty enhancement when a person, knowingly or intentionally, “in a rude, insolent or angry manner places any bodily fluid or waste on another person” and the “person knew or recklessly failed to know that the fluid or bodily waste was infected” with HIV.
    • The base misdemeanor becomes a Felony 6 if the person accused is living with HIV. If the victim is a “public safety official,” the base Felony 6 penalty increases to a Felony 5.
  • IC § 35-45-16-2(c-f), Malicious Mischief by Body Fluid or Waste, creates a penalty enhancement when a person causes another involuntarily to come into contact with or ingest a body fluid or waste and “the person knew or recklessly failed to know that the body fluid or fecal waste is infected with” HIV.
    • The base misdemeanor becomes a Felony 6 if the person accused is living with HIV. If transmission occurs, it further increases to a Felony 4.

In Indiana, a Felony 6 conviction can result in incarceration for up to 2.5 years. A Felony 5 conviction can result in incarceration for up to 6 years, and a Felony 4 conviction can result in incarceration for up to 12 years.

Key Findings

  • We identified 42 unique people across 51 unique cases who were charged under the two body fluid/waste HIV penalty enhancements between 2012 and 2023. In each battery case, the PLWH was charged with a penalty enhancement for behaviors that pose no transmission risk.
    • No cases under either law involved allegations of or charges for HIV transmission.

Battery by Bodily Fluid or Waste

  • In all, there were 41 cases involving 38 PLWH charged with an HIV-related battery by bodily fluid or waste crime. Of those, about half (49%) involved the public safety official HIV penalty enhancement.
  • None of the cases reviewed alleged actual HIV transmission or conduct that can transmit HIV.
    • In all, 82% of the alleged acts solely involved exposure to saliva, mainly through spitting. Saliva exposure is not an HIV transmission route. Urine exposure occurred in 3% of the incidents. Urine exposure is not an HIV transmission route.
    • Only 15% of cases involved exposure to blood. However, HIV is not transmitted by blood via the acts described in the cases reviewed (for example, spitting saliva mixed with blood at someone).
  • Enforcement increased over time, from 2.7 cases per year between 2012 and 2018 to 4.4 per year between 2019 and 2023.
  • About four in five (81%) of people charged were men.
  • White people were 64% of people charged, although they accounted for only 45% of the state’s population of PLWH. Likewise, white men were overrepresented, accounting for about half (51%) of all people accused of an HIV-related battery by bodily fluid crime, although they made up only 38% of the state’s population of PLWH.
  • Cases were highly concentrated in 17 of Indiana’s 92 counties, with about a third (31%) of cases occurring in Marion County—home to Indianapolis, the state capital and largest city.
  • Most alleged crimes took place in private residences (29%), public spaces (27%), hospitals (24%), and jails or prisons (15%).
  • In more than one in five (22%) cases, victims were advised to undergo HIV testing or post-exposure treatment even though none of the cases analyzed in this report alleged conduct that can transmit HIV.
  • Many cases indicated a period of heightened tension prior to alleged exposure:
    • Just over half (54%) of cases reviewed involved officer use of force prior to the alleged exposure incident.
    • Just under half (46%) of the cases described the person accused as apparently experiencing acute mental distress, intoxication, or both.
  • Nearly all (93%) people accused were found indigent by the courts and assigned a public defender.
  • Among the cases for which we have final outcomes, about four in ten (42%) had all charges dismissed.
  • In all, 17 cases led to a conviction on at least one HIV-related battery by bodily fluid charge; of those, 41% also included a public safety official enhancement. All convictions came from plea agreements. None of these cases proceeded to trial.
    • HIV-related convictions disproportionately resulted in incarceration in the Indiana Department of Corrections (72%), compared to just 32% for other non-HIV-related offenses connected to the analyzed cases.
    • HIV-related offenses resulted in significantly longer sentences, averaging 2.3 years, compared to 1.2 years for other offenses. Sentences for battery by bodily fluid/waste HIV offenses with public safety official enhancements averaged 3.1 years, more than double the 1.5-year average for those without enhancements.

Malicious Mischief

  • Only four people, involving 10 cases, were charged under malicious mischief enhancement. Many (eight in total) of these may have been inappropriate applications of the law—they involved conduct not intended to be covered by the law.
    • Two of the four people (eight cases) involved a person living with HIV allegedly failing to disclose their HIV status to an intimate partner. All eight resulted in convictions. The other two cases involved a person throwing a towel with urine and a person coughing; both were dismissed.
  • None of these cases involved charges for or allegations of HIV transmission.

Indiana’s HIV-related body fluid/waste exposure laws continue to punish PLWH more severely. None of the cases reviewed alleged actual HIV transmission. All the battery by bodily fluid cases describe conduct that does not transmit HIV, such as spitting or biting. The handful of malicious mischief cases that alleged conduct capable of HIV transmission appeared to be a misapplication of the law. None of these alleged HIV transmission either. Indeed, neither of Indiana’s HIV-related bodily fluid exposure laws contemplate behaviors that can normally transmit HIV. Rather, the laws appear to single PLWH out for harsher punishment merely because of their HIV status.

Download the full report

Mexico: Initiative to repeal of HIV criminalisation article in Federal Criminal Code sent to Justice Commission

Proposal to remove the crime of “danger of contagion” from the Federal Penal Code

Translated from Spanish with Deepl.com. Scroll down for original article.

In order not to undermine human rights and avoid the discrimination faced by people living with HIV (Human Immunodeficiency Virus) and AIDS (Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome), Congresswoman Laura Hernández García (MC) proposed repealing article 199 bis of the Federal Criminal Code, which refers to the crime of ‘danger of contagion’.

The article to be repealed establishes that anyone who, knowing that he or she is ill with a venereal disease or other serious disease during an infectious period, endangers the health of another by sexual intercourse or any other transmissible means, will be punished with three days to three years in prison and up to forty days in fines.

In addition, if the disease is incurable, it will be punishable by six months to five years in prison, and in the case of spouses, concubines or common-law wives, it will only be possible to proceed by complaint of the offended party.

The initiative, sent to the Justice Commission, considers that this decriminalisation contributes to eliminating barriers that limit the prevention and timely detection of the virus. It also strengthens public policy measures that contribute to combating the HIV pandemic within the framework of public health.

It states that HIV is a public health and human rights problem that, as of 2023, affects 39.9 million people around the world, who, due to stigma and discrimination, see their human rights violated and face barriers to exercising their rights and accessing health services that allow them adequate treatment.

These barriers, it stressed, signify institutional violence, which is why it is necessary to repeal article 199 Bis of the Federal Criminal Code, as the crime of danger of contagion ‘cannot remain in force’.

It called for building a new perspective on HIV, AIDS and people living with the condition, with a culture based on information that promotes non-discrimination, equal treatment, prevention and testing.

It explains that of the 33 penal codes that operate in Mexico, 27 provide for the crime of danger of contagion, which is often used against people with HIV, so this proposal is a first step to repeal it in the states where it still exists.

It points out that punitivism and criminalisation have different consequences for people living with HIV, such as loss of employment or housing, being forced to live in isolation from their families and society, as well as being subjected to physical violence.

It places HIV-positive people – especially women – at greater risk of violence and abuse, and ignores the reality that some may lack the capacity to disclose their HIV status or may not be able to negotiate condom use with their partner.

It adds that such criminalisation restricts the institutional public health response to HIV, as it results in fewer people attending health services for testing to avoid being exposed, diagnosed or punished, which does not help them, if necessary, to start treatment or share their diagnosis.

The disease affects not only those living with the virus, but also their families and those in their social environment. This is why there must be no criminal offence that violates their human rights and their access to health services.

The perspective of the response to the virus must focus on public health, not punitivism, the proposal emphasises.

Con el propósito de no socavar los derechos humanos y evitar la discriminación que enfrentan las personas que viven con VIH (Virus de Inmunodeficiencia Humana) y Sida (Síndrome de Inmunodeficiencia Adquirida), la diputada Laura Hernández García (MC) planteó derogar el artículo 199 bis del Código Penal Federal, que se refiere al delito de “peligro de contagio”.

El artículo que se pretende derogar establece que el que a sabiendas de que está enfermo de un mal venéreo u otra enfermedad grave en período infectante, ponga en peligro de contagio la salud de otro, por relaciones sexuales u otro medio transmisible, será sancionado de tres días a tres años de prisión y hasta cuarenta días de multa.

Además, si la enfermedad fuera incurable será de seis meses a cinco años de prisión, y cuando se trate de cónyuges, concubinarios o concubinas, sólo podrá procederse por querella del ofendido.

La iniciativa, enviada a la Comisión de Justicia, considera que esta descriminalización contribuye a eliminar barreras que limitan la prevención y detección oportuna del virus. Además, fortalece las medidas de política pública que abonan al combate de la pandemia del VIH en el marco de la salud pública.

Expresa que el VIH constituye un problema de salud pública y de derechos humanos que, a 2023, afectaba a 39.9 millones de personas alrededor del mundo, y quienes, debido al estigma y discriminación, ven violentados sus derechos humanos y enfrentan barreras para ejercer sus derechos y acceder a servicios de salud que les permitan un tratamiento adecuado.

Esas barreras, destaca, significan violencia institucional, por lo que es necesario derogar el artículo 199 Bis del Código Penal Federal, pues el delito por peligro de contagio “no puede seguir vigente”.

Se pronunció por construir una nueva perspectiva en torno al VIH, el Sida y las personas que viven con esta condición, con una cultura basada en la información que fomente la no discriminación, el trato igualitario, la prevención y la realización de pruebas.

Explica que de los 33 códigos penales que operan en México, 27 prevén el delito de peligro de contagio, que suele usarse contra personas con VIH, por lo que esta propuesta es un primer paso para que se derogue en los estados donde aún existe.

Refiere que el punitivismo y la criminalización tienen diferentes consecuencias para las personas que viven con VIH, como la pérdida del empleo o la vivienda, que se les orille a vivir aisladas de sus familias y de la sociedad, así como ser objeto de violencia física.

Coloca a las personas seropositivas –en especial a las mujeres– en una situación de mayor riesgo de violencia y abusos, e ignora la realidad de que es posible que algunas carezcan de la capacidad para revelar su estado serológico o no están en condiciones de negociar con su pareja el uso de preservativo.

Agrega que esa criminalización restringe la respuesta institucional al VIH en materia de salud pública, pues provoca que menos personas acudan a servicios de salud a realizarse pruebas de detección para evitar ser visibilizadas, diagnosticadas o castigadas, lo cual no ayuda a que, en caso necesario, inicien el tratamiento o compartan su diagnóstico.

La enfermedad no sólo afecta a quien vive con el virus; también a sus familias y a quienes forman parte de su entorno social. Por eso es necesario que no exista ninguna figura penal que vulnere sus derechos humanos y su acceso a servicios de salud.

La perspectiva de la respuesta al virus debe enfocarse en la salud pública, no en el punitivismo, enfatiza.