Prison time for HIV?

Prison time for HIV? It’s possible in Veracruz

El Daily Post, August 6th 2015

New legislation passed by the Veracruz state Congress calls for up to five years in prison for “willfully” infecting another with HIV, which can lead to AIDS. The measure is fraught with legal, medical, public health and human rights problems, but supporters insist it will help protect vulnerable women.

The Veracruz state Congress has unanimously approved legislation that calls for prison time for anyone who intentionally infects another person with the HIV virus or other sexually transmitted diseases.

The amendment to the state penal code makes Veracruz the second Mexican state (after Guerrero) to criminalize the sexual transmission of illnesses. Another 11 states have sanctions in the books for infecting others with “venereal diseases,” a term and concept no longer used in the medical community.

But Veracruz has stipulated a more severe punishment than the other states — from six months to five years in prison. Guerrero also has a maximum of five years, but it’s minimum is three months.

The bill was promoted by Dep. Mónica Robles Barajas, a member of the Green Party, which is allied with the ruling Institutional Revolutionary Party. She said the legislation is aimed at protecting women who can be infected by their husbands.

“It’s hard for a woman to tell her husband to use a condom,” she said in an interview with the Spanish-language online news site Animal Político.

The legislation, however, raises serious questions, both legal and medical, as well as concerns about human rights.

The most obvious problem is the notion of “intentional” infection. Robles emphasizes that the bill is based on a “willful” passing of the virus, which she defines as a carrier having sexual relations when he or she is aware of his or her HIV infection.

But the notion of intentionality in such cases is a complicated one for prosecutors, legal experts say. The he-said/she-said factor can be a sticking point, according to Luis González Plascencia, a former head of the Mexico City human rights commission, with the accusation likely to be based on one person’s testimony.

“There could be ways to show through testimony that there was an express intention to infect,” González told Animal Político. “But that’s always going to be circumstantial.”

A likely abuse of the law, he said, is attempted revenge or blackmail. An angry spouse or other partner can, with a simple declaration, create a legal nightmare.

Even if the issue of intentionality can be overcome, the very notion of criminalizing HIV infection is controversial. AIDs and human rights experts are against it.

One of them is Ricardo Hernández Forcada, who directs the HIV-AIDS program at Mexico’s National Human Rights Commission (CNDH). International experience, he says, indicates that punitive policies accomplish little besides government intrusion into private life. (Eastern Europe and Southeast Asia are regions where laws similar to the new one in Veracurz have existed.)

A Veracruz non-governmental organization called the Multisectoral HIV/AIDS Group issued a communiqué in response to the new legislation, declaring, “Scientific evidence shows that legislation and punishment do not prevent new infections, nor do they reduce female vulnerability. Instead, they negatively affect public health as well as human rights.”

González concurred. “The only thing that’s going to happen is that there will be another crime in the penal code that won’t accomplish anything except generate fear,” he said.

The Multisectoral Group also pointed out a disconnect between the law and medical science. It’s virtually impossible, the group says, to determine with certainty who infected whom with a sexually transmitted disease.

“Phylogenetic analyses alone cannot determine the relationship between two HIV samples,” the group said in its release. “They cannot establish the origin of an infection beyond a reasonable doubt, or how it occurred, or when it occurred.”

Robles, for her part, objects to the notion that the legislation criminalizes HIV carriers, insisting that the target is the intentional infection of another through sex. She emphasized that the aim of the new law is to protect women, who are often in a vulnerable situation.

“It’s directed much more at protecting women than homosexual groups,” she said. “There is a high incidence among women because there is no awareness of the risk they run.”

Opponents, however, see the new law as a step backward for men and women, and for public health in general, insisting that penalization comes at the expense of prevention.

“Knowing that they could be at risk of prosecution, people won’t get tested,” the CNDH’s Hernández Forcada said. “These measures inhibit people’s will to know their diagnosis.”

AFAO Policy Analyst Michael Frommer highlights the many types of anti-HIV criminalisation advocacy undertaken by the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network

The 8th IAS Conference on HIV Pathogenesis, Treatment and Prevention (IAS 2015) is on in Vancouver, Canada, this week. AFAO Policy Analyst Michael Frommer reports back on the pre-conference community forum.

Key human rights challenges, such as criminalisation of HIV transmission, were centre stage at the IAS community forum on Saturday 18 July.

Alison Symington, co-director of Research and Policy at the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network (Legal Network), described the challenge of advocacy and policy work in Canada in the face of ongoing criminalisation.

Aside from the significant justice issues when charges are laid for HIV non-disclosure, exposure or transmission, she also identified the serious of issue of people threatening their partners with an allegation, when there is relationship conflict, and how this in particular affects women who may be in abusive relationships.

In Canada, as in Australia, most of the people charged to date have been male heterosexuals, with a strong racialised element – mainly Black men. Since the mid-1990s, there has been an increase in the proportion of gay men charged.

Despite the fact that men make up the majority of those charged, Alison has investigated the pernicious effects of criminalisation on women. She explained how the ‘informal’ criminalisation of HIV positive mothers works, with their sense that their parenting is being under surveillance.

She outlined a huge range of advocacy and policy activities being undertaken by the Legal Network in response.

1) Legal defence strategy and intervention

Tactics include contacting the defence lawyers of individuals who have been charged with criminalisation related offences. The Legal Network also intervenes in the formal court proceedings and provides relevant scientific evidence.

2) Campaigns and advocacy

This has involved the Legal Network’s participation in the ‘Stop the Witch Hunt’ campaign targeting prosecutors, undertaken in collaboration with the AIDS Action Now. Legal Network staff also sit in court during trials, to make clear to judges/prosecutors that the community is monitoring developments.

3) Raising awareness/education

This education work is targeted at raising understanding among judges and among the community.

4) Working with doctors/scientists

A key piece of work was the Canadian Scientist Statement on HIV transmission risk. The Legal Network organised for 70 leading scientists from across Canada to sign this document which explained clearly the actual levels of risk of HIV transmission.

5) Distinguishing between HIV non-disclosure and sexual assault

HIV non-disclosure/exposure/transmission charges in Canada are made under the Canadian criminal law as an aggravated charge using the sexual assault provisions. The Legal Network aims to work with domestic violence/feminist organisations to ensure that HIV-related jurisprudence does not circumvent the appropriate application of sexual assault laws.

6) Prosecutorial guidelines

This has been an ongoing area of work across Ontario, Quebec and British Columbia. Ontario most recently advocated for the adoption of guidelines, but without adequate community input the Government drafted guidelines were dropped. There is still a desire to pursue appropriately formulated guidelines in future.

Marama Pala (in the audience) highlighting Australia’s public

health response to MC Dazon Dixon Diallo.

The comprehensive advocacy and policy response taken by the Canadian Legal Network is extremely impressive.

With one of, if not the highest rates per capita of criminalisation in the world, it is obviously very necessary in the Canadian context.

While some circumstances differ, there are a great many ideas that may be drawn upon for responding to HIV criminalisation in the Australian context.

UNAIDS Reference Group on HIV and Human Rights updates statement on HIV testing to include the “key trend” of “prolific unjust criminal laws and prosecutions”

The UNAIDS Reference Group on HIV and Human Rights has updated its statement on HIV testing — which continues to emphasise that human rights, including the right to informed consent and confidentiality, not be sacrifced in the pursuit of 90-90-90 treatment targets — in the light of “three key trends that have emerged since the last statement regarding HIV testing was issued by the UNAIDS Reference Group (in 2007).”

One of these is “prolific unjust criminal laws and prosecutions, including the criminalization of HIV non-disclosure, exposure, and transmission.” The other two involve the recognition that HIV treatment is also prevention, and policies that aim to “end the AIDS epidemic as a public health threat by 2030.”

This statement is an important policy document that can be used to argue that public health goals and human rights goals are not mutually exclusive.

The Reference Group was established in 2002 to advise the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) on all matters relating to HIV and human rights. It is also fully endorsed by by the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria Human Rights Reference Group.

This statement is issued at a time when UNAIDS and the Global Fund are renewing their strategies for 2016–2021 and 2017–2021, respectively.

To support these processes, the Reference Groups offer the following three key messages:

1. There is an ongoing, urgent need to increase access to HIV testing and counselling, as testing rates remain low in many settings. The Reference Groups support such efforts unequivocally and encourage the provision of multiple HIV testing settings and modalities, in particular those that integrate HIV testing with other services.

2. Simply increasing the number of people tested, and/or the number of times people test, is not enough, for many reasons. Much greater efforts need to be devoted to removing barriers to testing or marginalized and criminalized populations, and to link those tested with prevention and treatment services and successfully keep them in treatment.

3. Public health objectives and human rights principles are not mutually exclusive. HIV testing that violates human rights is not the solution. A “fast-track” response to HIV depends on the articulation of testing and counselling models that drastically increase use of HIV testing, prevention, treatment, and support services, and does so in ways that foster human rights protection, reduce stigma and discrimination, and encourage the sustained and supported engagement of those directly affected by HIV.

The section on HIV criminalisation is quoted below.

The criminalization of HIV non-disclosure, exposure, and transmission is not a new phenomenon, but the vigour with which governments have pursued criminal responses to alleged HIV exposures — at the same time as our understanding of HIV prevention and treatment has greatly advanced, and despite evidence that criminalization is not an effective public health response — causes considerable concern to HIV and human right advocates. In the last decade, many countries have enacted HIV-specifc laws that allow for overly broad criminalization of HIV non-disclosure, exposure, and transmission. This impetus seems to be “driven by the wish to respond to concerns about the ongoing rapid spread of HIV in many countries, coupled by what is perceived to be a failure of existing HIV prevention efforts.” In some instances, particularly in Africa, these laws have come about as a response to women being infected with HIV through sexual violence, or by partners who had not disclosed their HIV status.

Emerging evidence confrms the multiple implications of the criminalization of HIV non-disclosure, exposure, and transmission for HIV testing and counselling. For example, HIV criminalization can have the effect of deterring some people from getting tested and finding out their HIV status. The possibility of prosecution, alongside the intense stigma fuelled by criminalization, is good reason for some to withhold information from service providers or to avoid prevention services, HIV testing, and/or treatment. Indeed, in jurisdictions with HIV-specific criminal laws, HIV testing counsellors are often obliged to caution people that getting an HIV test will expose them to criminal liability if they find out they are HIV-positive and continue having sex. They may also be forced to provide evidence of a person’s HIV status in a criminal trial. This creates distrust in relationships between people living with HIV and their health care providers, interfering with the delivery of quality health care and frustrating efforts to encourage people to come forward for testing.

The full statement, with references, can be downloaded here and is embedded below.

HIV TESTING AND COUNSELLING: New technologies, increased urgency, same human rights

World Health Organization publishes analysis of impact of overly broad HIV criminalisation on public health

A new report from the World Health Organization, Sexual Health, Human Rights and the Law, adds futher weight to the body of evidence supporting arguments that overly broad HIV criminalisation does more harm than good to the HIV response.

Drawing from a review of public health evidence and extensive research into human rights law at international, regional and national levels, the report shows how each country’s laws and policies can either support or deter good sexual health, and that those that support the best public health outcomes “are [also] consistent with human rights standards and their own human rights obligations.”

The report covers eight broad areas relating to sexual health, human rights and the law, including: non-discrimination; criminalisation; state regulation of marriage and family; gender identity/expression; sexual and intimate partner violence; quality of sexual health services; sexuality and sexual health information; and sex work.

The authors of the report note that it provides “a unique and innovative piece of research and analysis. Other UN organizations are examining the links between health, human rights and the law: the United Nations Development Programme’s (UNDP’s) Global Commission on HIV and the Law published its report in 2012, and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) and United Nations Special Rapporteurs regularly report to the Human Rights Council on the impact of laws and policies on various aspects of sexual health. Nevertheless, this is the first report that combines these aspects, specifically with a public health emphasis.”

The points and recommendations made relating to overly broad HIV criminalisation (italicised for ease of reference) are included in full below.

Executive Summary: The use of criminal law (page 3)

All legal systems use criminal law to deter, prosecute and punish harmful behaviour, and to protect individuals from harm. However, criminal law is also applied in many countries to prohibit access to and provision of certain sexual and reproductive health information and services, to punish HIV transmission and a wide range of consensual sexual conduct occurring between competent persons, including sexual relations outside marriage, same-sex sexual behaviour and consensual sex work. The criminalization of these behaviours and actions has many negative consequences for health, including sexual health. Persons whose consensual sexual behaviour is deemed a criminal offence may try to hide it from health workers and others, for fear of being stigmatized, arrested and prosecuted. This may deter people from using health services, resulting in serious health problems such as untreated STIs and unsafe abortions, for fear of negative reactions to their behaviour or health status. In many circumstances, those who do access health services report discrimination and ill treatment by health-care providers.

International human rights bodies have increasingly called for decriminalization of access to and provision of certain sexual and reproductive health information and services, and for removal of punishments for HIV transmission and a wide range of consensual sexual conduct occurring between competent persons. National courts in different parts of the world have played an important role in striking down discriminatory criminal laws, including recognizing the potentially negative health effects.

3.4.5 HIV status (pages 22-23)

Although being HIV-positive is not itself indicative of sexual transmission of the infection, individuals are often discriminated against for their HIV-positive status based on a presumption of sexual activity that is often considered socially unacceptable.

In addition, in response to the fact that most HIV infections are due to sexual transmission, a number of countries criminalized transmission of, or exposure to, HIV, fuelling stigma, discrimination and fear, and discouraging people from getting tested for HIV, thus undermining public health interventions to address the epidemic.

Even where persons living with HIV/AIDS may be able, in principle, to access health services and information in the same way as others, fear of discrimination, stigma and violence may prevent them from doing so. Discrimination against people living with HIV is widespread, and is associated with higher levels of stress, depression, suicidal ideation, low self-esteem and poorer quality of life, as well as a lower likelihood of seeking HIV services and a higher likelihood of reporting poor access to care.

HIV transmission has been criminalized in various ways. In some countries criminal laws have been applied through a specific provision in the criminal code and/or a provision that allows for a charge of rape to be escalated to “aggravated rape” if the victim is thought to have been infected with HIV as a result. In some cases, HIV transmission is included under generic crimes related to public health, which punish the propagation of disease or epidemics, and/or the infliction of “personal injury” or “grievous bodily harm”.

Contrary to the HIV-prevention rationale that such laws will act as a deterrent and provide retribution, there is no evidence to show that broad application of the criminal law to HIV transmission achieves either criminal justice or public health goals. On the contrary, such laws fuel stigma, discrimination and fear, discouraging people from being tested to find out their HIV status, and undermining public health interventions to address the epidemic. Thus, such laws may actually increase rather decrease HIV transmission.

Women are particularly affected by these laws since they often learn that they are HIV-positive before their male partners do, since they are more likely to access health services. Furthermore, for many women it is either difficult or impossible to negotiate safer sex or to disclose their status to a partner for fear of violence, abandonment or other negative consequences, and they may therefore face prosecution as a result of their failure to disclose their status. Criminal laws have also been used against women who transmit HIV to their infants if they have not taken the necessary steps to prevent transmission. Such use of criminal law has been strongly condemned by human rights bodies.

Various human rights and political bodies have expressed concern about the harmful effects of broadly criminalizing the transmission of HIV. International policy guidance recommends against specific criminalization of HIV transmission. Human rights bodies as well as United Nations’ specialized agencies, such as UNAIDS, have stated that the criminalization of HIV transmission in the instance of intentional, malicious transmission is the only circumstance in which the use of criminal law may be appropriate in relation to HIV. States are urged to limit criminalization to those rare cases of intentional transmission, where a person knows his or her HIV-positive status, acts with the intent to transmit HIV, and does in fact transmit it.

Human rights bodies have called on states to ensure that a person’s actual or perceived health status, including HIV status, is not a barrier to realizing human rights. When HIV status is used as the basis for differential treatment with regard to access to health care, education, employment, travel, social security, housing and asylum, this amounts to restricting human rights and it constitutes discrimination. International human rights standards affirm that the right to non-discrimination includes protection of children living with HIV and people with presumed same-sex conduct. Human rights standards also disallow the restriction of movement or incarceration of people with transmissible diseases (e.g. HIV/AIDS) on grounds of national security or the preservation of public order, unless such serious measures can be justified.

To protect the human rights of people living with HIV, states have been called on to implement laws that help to ensure that persons living with HIV/AIDS can access health services, including antiretroviral therapy. This might mean, as in the case of the Philippines, for example, explicitly prohibiting hospitals and health institutions from denying a person with HIV/AIDS access to health services or charging them more for those services than a person without HIV/AIDS (167).

International guidance also suggests that such laws should be consistent with states’ international human rights obligations and that instead of applying criminal law to HIV transmission, governments should expand programmes that have been proven to reduce HIV transmission while protecting the human rights both of people living with HIV and those who are HIV-negative.

3.6 Legal and policy implications (pages 29-30)

5. Does the state consider that establishing and applying specific criminal provisions on HIV transmission can be counter-productive for health and the respect, protection and fulfilment of human rights, and that general criminal law should be used strictly for intentional transmission of HIV?

The full report can be downloaded from the WHO’s Sexual and Reproductive Health website.

Zambia: Network of people living with HIV react to last week’s prosecution of a Zambian man in Wales for reckless HIV transmission, say HIV criminalisation is unworkable and unjust

THE Network of Zambian People Living with HIV and AIDS says criminalizing HIV transmission cannot work in a country like Zambia which has a high prevalence rate of the disease. Commenting on a story in Swansea, Great Britain where a Zambian man has been jailed for seven years after infecting two women with HIV, NZP+ programme manager Kunyima Banda in an interview described the situation as unfortunate.

According to the South Wales Evening Post, Mweetwa Muleya, 28, had unprotected sex with two women knowing he had HIV and he failed to tell them about his HIV condition before having sex with them. A court heard the women were “devastated” to find out they had caught the life changing illness after going for blood tests.

Asked if Zambia could also introduce a law to criminalize HIV infection, Banda said criminalizing HIV infection would becomes a barrier for people to access HIV/AIDS services.

“It is not right to willfully infect another person but it would be difficult for Zambia because you have to establish whether willful infection did take place, whether the person at a time that they had intercourse, the other person never knew that the partner was infected, that has to be determined as well. You also have to determine that the person actually did want to infect on purpose,” Banda said.

She said Zambia’s current system could not allow the criminalization of HIV because the country was putting interventions where more people could go for be testing.

“If we have a law which criminalizes HIV infection, it means that a lot of people will not go for HIV testing. What it will mean is that if people do not want to know their status, chances of them infecting other people then becomes higher because then they do not know that they are infected with HIV,” Banda said.

“Just imagine if a pregnant woman who has no access to medical facilities then gives birth and the baby gets infected, what do you call that? So all those are issues that we need to consider to make that law in Zambia which will not work for us because we are looking at getting to the 90- 90 target where 90 per cent of the people knowing their status, 90 per cent of people getting their treatment,” she said.

Banda said her organization could not support the criminalization of HIV infection.

She however said NZP+ did not encourage people to go out and infect other people willfully.

International Community of Women Living with HIV (ICW) publish updated position statement on overly broad HIV criminalisation

The International Community of Women Living with HIV (ICW) have published an updated position statement on the criminalisation of women living with HIV for non-disclosure, potential or perceived exposure, and transmission.

The statement highlights many problems with overly broad HIV criminalisation, but is notable for singling out issues that specifically relate to women living with HIV:

Critically, rather than reducing transmission of HIV, fear of prosecution may deter women from accessing needed treatment care and support, discourage disclosure, and increase vulnerability of women to violence…

Criminalization is often framed as a mechanism to protect women who are experiencing intimate partner violence or sexual assault. However, in practice there same laws intended to protect women often place them in increased risk for violence and increasing stigma surrounding HIV…

The criminalization of mothers for HIV transmission and/or exposure serves to further increase stigma for positive women who want to have children or who are pregnant, by blaming women for transmission.

ICW recommends the following:

Repeal laws that criminalize non-intentional HIV exposure or transmission, particularly those that single out women living with HIV or people living with HIV for prosecution or increased punishment solely based on their HIV status.
Empower women to know about the criminal context of HIV transmission and exposure.
Enact legislation that promotes gender equality in the criminal justice system.
Remove all laws that disproportionately target women living with HIV and marginalized groups.
Promote community based awareness campaigns to address criminalization as a human rights violation.
Train health care providers, and other support workers to ensure that confidentiality for women living with HIV is protected.
Increase legal support for women living with HIV facing prosecution under these harmful laws.

Read the full position statement below.

ICW Position Statement 2015 CRIMINALIZATION OF WOMEN LIVING WITH HIV: NON-DISCLOSURE, EXPOSURE, AND TRANSMI…

Repealing Section 19A: How we got there, by Paul Kidd, Chair of the HIV Legal Working Group

Australia’s only HIV-specific criminal law, section 19A of the Crimes Act in the state of Victoria, has now been repealed. This is an exciting step forward for those of us working to turn around Victoria’s poor record on criminalisation of HIV. This blog entry outlines the process we used to achieve this historic reform.

This story starts just before the 2010 International AIDS Conference in Vienna, at the first-ever HIV criminalisation pre-conference meeting, co-organised by the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network, the Global Network of People Living with HIV (GNP+) and NAM (who host the HIV Justice Network). Attending this meeting and hearing about the incredible work being done in this area was the inspiration for starting a joint advocacy project to address the issue here in Victoria. The partners in that project are the two largest HIV organisations in our state, Living Positive Victoria and the Victorian AIDS Council.

Our objectives were to achieve a set of prosecutorial guidelines, on a similar model to those adopted by the Crown Prosecution Service for England and Wales, and the repeal of s 19A. Although our initial focus was on the guidelines, with the announcement that Melbourne would host the 2014 International AIDS Conference, we decided to shift our focus to the repeal of s 19A. We felt that by focusing on a law that was manifestly out of step with best practice, we could use the conference to embarrass our legislators into action. With a state election due three months after AIDS 2014, we felt confident we could make political headway with the issue.

Section 19A makes it a criminal offence to intentionally transmit a ‘very serious disease’, which is defined to mean only HIV. It carries a maximum 25-year prison sentence, making it one of the most serious crimes on the Victorian statute book. It was enacted in 1993, following a high-profile case in which a prison officer in NSW was stabbed with a hypodermic syringe, and a number of cases in which blood-filled syringes were used in armed robberies.

Although the law was passed, supposedly, to deal with this kind of ‘syringe bandit’ assault, in practice it has been applied exclusively against people accused of sexual transmission of HIV. Although only a handful of cases have ever been prosecuted (and none successfully), s 19A has often been charged, or used as a threat against people accused of reckless transmission or endangerment. Its presence on the statute book has sent an unwelcome and false signal that people with HIV are a danger to public safety.

Additionally, we were armed with a solid evidence base – particularly the reports of UNAIDS and the Global Commission on HIV and the Law, which specifically criticise HIV-specific laws like s 19A.

We made a point of telegraphing our intentions to the government and opposition political parties well ahead of the conference. We developed a policy brief setting out the case for repeal of the section, and sought dialogue with both parties in the months before the conference. We wanted to give them every opportunity, at a time when the eyes of the world would be on us, to take action that would generate international attention and goodwill.

Our approach to the government was initially rebuffed, with a curt reply that they had no intention of changing the law. The Labor opposition, which had opposed the law in 1993, was more welcoming and we were able to explain our position at a number of meetings leading up to the conference. We were unable to get a commitment for action, but we were confident that both sides knew what we were asking for.

We gathered together a strong coalition of supporting organisations who agreed to back our call. As well as the HIV sector, we had support from the broader civil sector (organisations focused on human rights, mental health, gay and lesbian rights) and from the legal sector, particularly the criminal bar. We had the backing of the AIDS 2014 chairs. We spent a good deal of time before the conference drafting talking points that enabled us to get our media messaging clear, and thinking about ways to get our message out to conference delegates already being showered with slogans, messages and leaflets.

As the conference approached, however, we had no commitment from either party. We were taken by surprise when the health minister used a speech opening the ‘Beyond Blame’ HIV criminalisation pre-conference to make a commitment to ‘amend section 19A to make it non-discriminatory.’ Given the blunt ‘not interested’ we had received a couple of months earlier, this was a stunning turnaround, but still fell short of what we wanted – full repeal of section 19A. Worse, the way the announcement was phrased suggested the scope of the law could in fact be widened to include other diseases like hepatitis C – the last thing we wanted.

As the conference week progressed, we continued to press our case and to highlight the need for repeal. We garnered positive press coverage following a media conference held on the opening day (even the tabloid press gave us a sympathetic hearing). The sight of thousands of protesters marching through the streets of Melbourne with signs reading ‘#REPEAL19A’ made the evening news. We publicly called on the government to clarify why they were saying ‘amend’ rather than ‘repeal’. Behind the scenes, we used every social event and reception to buttonhole politicians and push our case, highlighting the goodwill that an announcement would generate for them on the international stage. It was an exhausting week, but with each passing day we knew our opportunities were diminishing.

Finally, on the last full day of the conference, the opposition Labor Party committed to full repeal of section 19A, within one year, if they won the election in November. The word came though via text message while I was sitting in a conference session on criminalisation advocacy, and I felt close to tears as I told the room what had happened. We now had commitments from both major parties, meaning reform of the law was almost assured.

Following the conference, we continued to push the government to explain how they intended to ‘amend’ section 19A and pressed our case for full repeal further. We never got an answer to our question, because the government didn’t bring the legislation forward before the expiry of the parliamentary term, then at the election there was a change of government.

The Labor Party, which had unambiguously promised to repeal s 19A, was now in government, and one of the most pleasing things about the last five months has been seeing them stick to their guns around 19A. Seeing government ministers on gay pride day carrying a banner saying ‘repeal section 19A’ was amazing.

I think the key message from our experience is that if you have an opportunity and you plan well, you can make tremendous use of it. I realise most activists won’t have the luxury of having the international AIDS conference come to their city, but hopefully other opportunities exist where local and global attention can be used to highlight inequities in the law. Building collaborations and learning from what has worked elsewhere is vital, but develop a strategy that suits your local needs and capacities.

Don’t be deterred if others disagree with your strategy – I’ve lost count of the number of times I’ve been told that criminalisation isn’t a first-order issue, or that by advocating for change we risk ‘making things worse’, or that by advocating too hard we risk getting nothing in return and pushing the issue off the agenda.

Now that s 19A is gone, our work continues. We still need to address the unacceptably high number of prosecutions for ‘HIV endangerment’ that occur in Victoria. We strongly believe we have a model that will deliver the right public health outcomes while safeguarding the public, without the use of expensive, ineffective and highly stigmatising criminal prosecutions. With the repeal of section 19A, our state government has recommitted itself to a health-based response to HIV, and we believe that gives us the best possible platform to continue our campaign for prosecutorial guidelines.

Paul Kidd (@paulkidd) chairs the Victorian HIV Legal Working Group.

Canada: Mainstream magazine covers the problematic link between 'treatment as prevention' and overly broad HIV criminalisation

Transmission Control

HIV non-disclosure laws do more harm than good

By Miranda Elliott

From the June 2015 magazine

Testing HIV positive is no longer a death sentence—a fact that stands as one of the great medical achievements of the twentieth century. The United Nations aims to diagnose 90 percent of all HIV infections worldwide by 2020, deliver antiretroviral therapy to 90 percent of those who test positive, and suppress the virus in 90 percent of those treated. If these goals are met, the AIDS epidemic could be over by 2030.

The UN strategy owes a significant debt to Canadian research—particularly that of Julio Montaner, who was among the first scientists to establish highly active antiretroviral therapy as the standard of care for HIV, back in the mid-1990s. Sustained use of HAART suppresses the virus’s ability to replicate, eventually decreasing the concentration of HIV cells in the blood to undetectable levels and delaying the onset of symptoms and eventual progression to AIDS.

Regrettably, our legal system has not kept pace with these advances.

Montaner conducts his research in Vancouver, which was among the hardest-hit communities in North America in the early ’90s. The British Columbia government soon became an enthusiastic supporter of HAART and quickly rolled out antiretroviral-therapy coverage across the province. Between 1996 and 2009, the number of people taking HAART increased more than sixfold. Accordingly, the rate of AIDS-related deaths in the province plummeted 80 percent.

In their efforts to treat the virus, the researchers had stumbled upon a way to control its spread, too: when antiretroviral treatment reduces the virus in a patient’s bloodstream, it also reduces the virus to undetectable levels in sexual fluids and dramatically decreases the risk of transmission. Studies indicate that, among gay men, an undetectable viral load decreases the risk for unprotected receptive anal sex from 1.4 percent to almost zero. When it comes to the spread of HIV, a low viral load (between zero and 0.05 viral copies per millilitre) is more effective at preventing transmission than wearing a condom is.

Once the epicentre for new cases, BC has been enormously successful at controlling the HIV epidemic, using this Treatment as Prevention strategy, or TasP. The rate of new infections is now below the Canadian average. For the past decade, Montaner has been calling for national and international prevention strategies modelled on BC’s success with TasP. But what seems like sound medical advice could inadvertently put Canadian patients at legal risk. This is because we have one of the most aggressive legal approaches to HIV non-disclosure in the world. We are second only to the US in prosecutions.

HIV-positive Canadians who don’t reveal their status before they have intercourse can be charged with aggravated sexual assault. Conviction carries with it a maximum sentence of life in prison and a mandatory listing on the national registry of sex offenders. Between 1989 and early 2015, 176 people, in 188 separate cases, were prosecuted for non-disclosure, and more than half of the cases led to conviction.

Yet many of those convicted did not transmit the virus to the plaintiff. To be found guilty, a defendant need only have knowingly exposed his or her partner to what the courts deem a “realistic possibility” of transmission. Since there are no prosecutorial guidelines that define a low viral load, interpretations vary widely from case to case. And so it is possible that a properly medicated HIV-positive sexual partner might be convicted under the law, even if his viral load is so low as to reduce the possibility of transmission to a statistically negligible level.

The non-disclosure law originated with the 1998 Supreme Court decision in R v. Cuerrier, at a time when death rates were skyrocketing and policy-makers were scaling up testing and treatment. Proponents of the law argue that it helps protect people from malicious exposure to HIV.

The feeling on the ground is very different: since the law punishes only those who knowingly put partners at risk, it might encourage some at-risk Canadians to remain ignorant about their medical status. Evidence is sparse when it comes to this chilling effect, but even researchers such as Montaner agree that the law “creates a counterproductive environment.”

There is also a growing number of allegations that health authorities have not been forthcoming when it comes to informing patients of the legal risks associated with being HIV positive. Though BC’s 2014 testing guidelines lay out explicitly the requirement for informed consent, they don’t advise practitioners to address the issue of non-disclosure criminalization before testing. The province’s public-health officer, Perry Kendall, says this is intentional. Public-health practitioners are not legal experts, he says, noting that the longer and more complex the preliminary conversation, the less likely the patient will be to go through with testing.

While there is little systematic collection of information about testing experiences, Micheal Vonn of the BC Civil Liberties Association says she has received a number of complaints from patients, particularly pregnant women, who claim they were tested without consent. Vonn, alarmed by these allegations, plans to investigate further.

Another human-rights advocate, Richard Elliott of the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network, believes clearer guidelines are essential to ensuring that those who are tested are sufficiently aware of the legal risks. He notes that physicians’ records have been subpoenaed in court to support convictions for non-disclosure.

The unfortunate irony here is that the very laws intended to prevent further transmission of HIV may actually promote its spread—by discouraging testing and, by extension, impeding the work of the successful TasP program. Seventeen years after the Supreme Court’s 1998 decision, Canadian lawmakers must ensure that our policy of criminalizing non-disclosure does not serve to punish those who opt for life-saving HIV therapy and treatment.

Kenya: Detailed analysis of recent High Court ruling on Kenya’s HIV-specific law by Annabel Raw, head of Health Rights Programme at the Southern Africa Litigation Centre

On 18 March 2015, in Aids Law Project v Attorney General and Others [2015] the High Court of Kenya declared section 24 of the HIV and AIDS Prevention and Control Act (“Act”) unconstitutional. I applaud the impetus of the decision but I want to argue that the narrow focus of the Court’s judgment reduces its potential to advance rational health policies and laws.

Section 24(1) of the Act requires a person aware of being HIV-positive to “take all reasonable measures and precautions to prevent the transmission of HIV to others” and to “inform, in advance, any sexual contact or persons with whom needles are shared” of their HIV-positive status. Subsection (2) prohibits “knowingly and recklessly, placing another person at risk of becoming infected with HIV”. Contravention of these provisions is a criminal offence punishable by imprisonment for up to seven years, and/or a fine. Under section 24(7), a medical practitioner who becomes aware of a patient’s HIV-status may inform anyone who has sexual contact with that patient of their HIV-status.

In 2010, the AIDS Law Project sought a declaration that section 24 of the Act was unconstitutional and “unacceptable discrimination” on the basis of health status. It argued that the undefined terms of “inform”, “in advance” and “sexual contact” renders section 24 vague and overbroad, contrary to the principle of legality. It submitted that the provision violates the right to a fair hearing, equality, non-discrimination, and sexual privacy. The petitioner was supported by an amicus curiae, the Centre for Reproductive Rights, which made submissions on the disproportionate impact that the provision would have on women, exacerbating stigma and undermining public health interventions.

In a unanimous judgment of a sitting of three judges of the High Court, Lenaola HJ held that the central issue was the provision’s vagueness and overbreadth. Focussing solely on the absence of a definition for “sexual contact”, the Court held that it is impossible to determine what acts are prohibited. Further, given that section 24 places no obligation on sexual contacts who have been informed of another’s HIV-status to keep that information confidential, the provision does not meet the standards for a justifiable limitation of the constitutional right to privacy.

Similar criminal provisions exist in a number of countries. The Constitutional Court in Zimbabwe is, for example, currently considering the constitutionality of Zimbabwe’s HIV criminalization law. The Kenyan judgment must be applauded to the extent that it emboldens the human rights critique of these laws and compels the Kenyan government to reconsider the provision.

It is disappointing, however, that the privacy violations were constructed so narrowly, with the Court failing to appreciate the risks of criminalizing non-disclosure more broadly, particularly for vulnerable groups, as raised by the amicus. Furthermore, by framing the vagueness and overbreadth ruling so strictly, the inhibiting effects of criminalization on effective public health interventions remain legally unscathed.

Insofar as the courts may be a useful forum to advance health rights and public health, perhaps a better legal foundation would be a rationality review of legislation. In a number of common law jurisdictions, this entails testing conduct or law against the ends that it claims to achieve. The standard typically requires that conduct needs to be rationally connected to a legitimate government interest or purpose in order to be lawful.

As made clear by the Act’s long title, its purpose is to prevent, control and manage HIV and AIDS, promote public health, and deliver appropriate care for persons living with HIV. The criminalization of HIV transmission and non-disclosure has come under heavy criticism by leading international experts and bodies for failing to protect human rights in a way that promotes public health initiatives for the effective treatment and control of HIV. If the argument against criminalization of HIV transmission is found persuasive in court, the legislation should be found irrational because it employs a strategy that is harmful to its purported ends.

It is in this sense that we might consider rationality review when using the courts in similar jurisdictions as fora to insist on public health policies and laws that are founded in scientific evidence and not fear and stigma.