Kenya: Advocates argue that HIV criminalisation law is impeding progress in Kenya’s response to the epidemic

Group criticises sexual offences law in war against HIV

In Summary

Despite the opposition from the State, persons living with HIV and Aids want the courts to declare section 26 of the Sexual Offences Act unlawful.
But the state argues that the challenged provisions are clear, precise, unambiguous, and do not disclose any infringement of their constitutional rights

The government could be shooting itself in the foot in the ongoing efforts to contain the spread of HIV and Aids by allowing the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) to arrest and commence criminal trial against those suspected of spreading the virus.

The state has been calling on the public to come out openly and seek testing and treatment.

However, recent events where the DPP wants a 42-year-old woman in Nakuru jailed for breastfeeding and infecting her neighbour’s nine-month-old baby with HIV last year, could undo the gains already made in containing the spread of the virus.

It is feared that such prosecution may discourage others from going public about their status and seeking treatment among other state interventions aimed at curbing the virus.

The law under which the woman was charged, Section 26 of the Sexual Offences Act, is also the subject of litigation at the High Court by HIV positive persons (PLWHA) who want it repealed.

The woman’s lawyer, Ms Jenifer Mugweru, is appealing the orders issued by a magistrate on October 18, requiring her to provide her blood samples to be tested for HIV.

INFORMED CONSENT

The woman who is out on a Sh50,000 bond is said to have committed the offence on September 18, 2018 at Gichobo area in Njoro Sub-County.

The HIV and Aids Prevention and Control Act (Hapca), which has been in force since 2009, provides at Section 14 that, “No person shall undertake an HIV test in respect of another person except: (a) with the informed consent of that other person.”

Informed consent refers to consent given with the full knowledge of the risks involved, probable consequences and the range of alternatives available.

“Informed consent for HIV testing means that the person being tested for HIV agrees to undergo the test on the basis of understanding the testing procedures, the reasons for the testing, and is able to assess the personal implications of having or not having the test performed,” the HIV and Aids Tribunal ruled in one of its decisions.

In their application challenging Section 26 of the Sexual Offences Act, and its subsections, people living with HIV and Aids argue that it could undermine government efforts to eradicate or contain HIV and Aids spread.

They have interpreted section 26 of the Sexual Offences Act to imply that a person living with the disease is a potential criminal, who needs to be prosecuted and jailed, should it be established that he or she is “spreading” HIV/Aids.

POTENTIAL CRIMINAL

Section 26(1) of the Sexual Offences Act provides that “any person who, having actual knowledge that he or she is infected with HIV or any other ‘life threatening’ sexually transmitted disease, intentionally, knowingly and wilfully does anything or permits the doing of anything which he or she knows ….

“ … (a) Will infect another with HIV or any other ‘life threatening’ sexually transmitted disease … Shall be guilty of an offence, whether or not he or she is married to that other person, and shall be liable upon conviction to imprisonment for a term of not less than fifteen years but which may be for life.”

The effect of this section and its subsidiary sections is that it perpetuates discrimination, stigma and fear against persons with HIV/Aids.

Living with the disease makes a person a criminal waiting to be arrested, prosecuted and visited with a lengthy jail term.

“It therefore discourages people from testing for HIV, seeking treatment and disclosing their status,” the litigants said in court papers.

According to people living with HIV and Aids, knowledge of one’s HIV status is important because it allows one to seek treatment and greatly reduces if not eliminates the risk of further transmission.

It also makes it possible to employ a range of other transmission prevention strategies and can improve expansion of HIV diagnosis and treatment, therefore a necessary condition for a successful HIV response.

“Section 26 of the Act thereby threatens progress gained and severely constrains further progress in Kenya’s response to the HIV epidemic,” the PLWHA argue.

PRIVACY

The section, according to the group, also intrudes on the privacy of marriage between consenting parties, it creates stigma and discrimination against couples in which one partner has HIV and the other does not (discordant couples).

It criminalises consensual physical intimacy between partners, threatens to separate families by removing a parent or partner from the family to be incarcerated (it criminalises procreation between discordant couples).

The group says the section creates stigma and discrimination against breastfeeding whereas this is the means by which most people in Kenya nourish their infants, and the only practical means by which to do so for many as well as the medically suggested means including people with HIV.

“And in that it threatens to separate children from their parents by removing the parent from the child to be incarcerated for lengthy periods on the basis of their HIV status, whereas it is in the presumptive interest of the child to be raised by both parents,” said PLWHA in court papers.

The group also takes issue with the meaning of the term “life-threatening sexually transmitted disease” or what constitutes it, saying it has not been explained in the Act, and the law is therefore vague in that respect.

VICTIM’S INTENTION

The state in defending the law disagrees with the arguments being advanced by the group, saying the challenged provisions are clear, precise, unambiguous, and do not disclose any infringement of their constitutional rights.

The group wants the court to declare Section 26 of the Sexual Offences Act unlawful. The case is still pending in the high court.

Further, that it is important to appreciate why section 26 of the Sexual Offences Act was enacted.

“While examining whether a particular law is unconstitutional, the court must have regard not only to its purpose but also its effect. The purpose of section 26 of the Sexual Offences Act was to address the intentional spread of HIV and Aids,” state counsel Anne Wanjiku Mwangi in court papers.

Despite the opposition from the State, persons living with HIV and Aids want the courts to declare section 26 of the Sexual Offences Act unlawful.

US: Growing number of Ohio public health experts and advocates call for reform of HIV criminalisation law

Experts: Ohio law on HIV status disclosure hurts public health

COLUMBUS, Ohio — A growing number of Ohio public health experts and advocates are now working to stop what they call the criminalization of HIV.

Daphne Kackloudis, Chief Public Policy Officer at Equitas Health, told News 5 Ohio’s current law charging someone who fails to disclose their HIV status with a felony in all cases is hurting public health.

Kackloudis said the threat of up to eight years in prison is causing too many people to avoid getting tested, because according the current law if someone doesn’t get tested, and isn’t aware of their status they can’t be prosecuted.

“It is a disincentive for someone to get tested, and that’s not good for an individuals health and the public health,” Kackloudis said.

“We want them to get on antiretroviral therapy to get as healthy as possible, and be virally suppressed so they can not transmit HIV.”

Kackloudis believes the potential penalty should be moved back to a misdemeanor in cases where those charged are on HIV medication and are a far less infection risk.

She said the current law allows someone to file charges against an HIV-positive partner, even if they didn’t get the virus from that partner.

Kackloudis is a member of the Ohio Health Modernization Movement , which is also making an effort to change Ohio law.

She also made it clear she fully understands why the law was created, and said the proposed change in the law would still allow for full prosecution of those who willingly give others HIV.

Graig Cote of Columbus, who has been HIV positive for 33 years, told News 5 changes in the law are needed because it’s too difficult to prove if someone made proper disclosure of their status or not, unless there was a witness or if it was in writing or recorded.

“If we don’t change the laws, people don’t get tested, if they don’t get tested they don’t know if they’re HIV positive,” Cote said.

“We’re not asking for a free ride, we’re just asking that the laws catch up with the science.”

Cote said he hopes the proposed change in Ohio law is ready to present at the statehouse in the first quarter of 2020, and again made it clear the effort would not keep those who willingly spread HIV from facing full prosecution.

“People who want to infect somebody need to be stopped, there’s no dispute about that,” Cote said.

Ireland: Review conducted by Law Reform Commission to look at how non-disclosure might influence consent

‘Should society criminalise intimate relations between people in their mid-teens?’

Conference hears age of consent is higher in Ireland than most European countries

The ways in which deception or pressure might negate consent are among the matters to be considered in a major review of sexual offences laws.

The review, being conducted by the Law Reform Commission, will also look at the age of consent, which is higher in Ireland than in most European countries.

NUI Galway lecturer in law, Tom O’Malley, who is a member of the commission, told its annual conference that the issue of consent remains a very contentious topic and one that many countries are trying to grapple with.

“When you have more subtle forms of pressure being applied, does that negate consent?”

He asked: What if a teacher or university lecturer told a student they would be failed unless the student slept with the lecturer, and the student did. “Is that rape?”

Suppose that a lecturer said a student would be given a first, rather than a 2.1, if the student slept with the lecturer, “would that be the absence of consent?”

“Those are the types of difficulties that are there and we have to grapple with them,” he said.

Speaking to The Irish Times, Mr O’Malley said that as part of its review, the commission would also be looking at how deception might influence consent.

For instance, he said, what if a man had not told a woman he was HIV positive prior to having sex with her. Would that affect the issue of consent and allow the man be charged with rape? Of if a man had promised a woman he would marry her, and then did not?

Another matter that will be looked at, he told the conference, is the age of consent. At the moment it is 17 years, and 18 years in cases where one of the parties is a person in authority.

“The real issue”, he told the conference, is whether society should criminalise intimate relations between people in their mid-teens.

While the age of consent is high in Ireland in comparison with most European countries, the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 2017 “mitigates the rigours of the law” by exempting a person who is younger or less than two years older than the child they had sex with, provided the child was between 15 and 17 at the time, and consented.

The commission will also look at the law on incest, which criminalises vaginal sexual intercourse between blood relatives.

Consenting intercourse between an adult brother and sister, even if there is no risk of pregnancy, is a crime. “One might question if such conduct should be criminal.”

As well as his work with the commission, Mr O’Malley is also the chairman of a working group set up by the Department of Justice and Equality which is reviewing the investigation and prosecution of sexual offences. It is due to report later this year, he said.

The chief executive of the Dublin Rape Crisis Centre, Noeline Blackwell, said sexual offences were different to most other types of crime as they involved activity that is normally seen as healthy and good. Sexual crimes are particularly “disruptive” for the victim, she said.

Victims are badly served by the criminal justice system and the fact that approximately 90 per cent of sexual offences are not reported damages the rule of law, she said.

From the point of view of victims, the criminal justice system remains “a lonely and a difficult and a hostile place.”

Mexico: People with HIV in Jalisco can now marry as long as couple sign letter confirming awareness of HIV status and attend training on risks

People with HIV can now get married in Jalisco

If the couple signs an agreement, where both parties are aware of the responsibilities, scope and effects of chronic or contagious diseases such as HIV, they can marry, as established by the laws in Jalisco.

The Congress of Jalisco approved Wednesday changes to the Civil Code and the Civil Registry Law so that couples with diseases can get married.

Medical exams will continue as a requirement to get married, but couples must attach a signed letter stating they know the extent of the disease. They will also have to present a letter, issued by a public health institution, attesting that the couple attended a training on the risks, symptoms and effects of the condition.

This reform seeks to guarantee the free development of personality and protect human rights in Jalisco.

Personas con VIH ya pueden casarse en Jalisco

Si la pareja firma un acuerdo, donde ambas partes estén conscientes de las responsabilidades, alcances y efectos de las enfermedades crónicas o contagiosas como el VIH, puede contraer matrimonio, así lo establecerá las leyes en Jalisco.

El Congreso de Jalisco aprobó este miércoles cambios al Código Civil y la Ley del Registro Civil para que las parejas con enfermedades puedan casarse.

Los exámenes médicos continuarán como un requisito para contraer matrimonio, pero las parejas deberán anexar un escrito firmado donde afirmen conocer los alcances de la enfermedad. Además tendrán presentar una carta, emitida por una institución de salud pública, que dé fe que la pareja asistió a una capacitación sobre los riesgos, síntomas y efectos del padecimiento.

Esta reforma busca garantizar el libre desarrollo de la personalidad y proteger derechos humanos en Jalisco.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Published Sep. 19

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Women living with HIV & the law

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Recommendations could go further

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

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

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

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

Heed women’s experiences

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

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

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

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

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

US: Laws should not penalise marginalised populations that might lack access to drugs, instead HIV exposure should be decriminalised altogether unless there was clear intent to infect someone

Sex with HIV still a crime? Updated laws divide advocates

ATLANTA (AP) — As Sanjay Johnson describes it, his sexual encounter with James Booth on Oct. 2, 2015, was a one-night stand. But it would bind the men inextricably two years later, when Booth walked into an Arkansas police station and accused Johnson of exposing him to HIV.

Little Rock prosecutors pursued a criminal charge against Johnson even though a doctor said he couldn’t have transmitted HIV to Booth because he was on medication that suppressed his virus.

“It really tested me just to keep going,” Johnson said about his criminal case, which ended this year. “Last year, I thought of suicide.”

Booth said he deserved to know about Johnson’s HIV status regardless of any medical treatment.

“I could have protected myself,” he said.

Roughly 20 states have laws like the one in Arkansas that make it a crime for people with HIV to have sex without first informing their partner of their infection, regardless of whether they used a condom or were on medication that made transmission of the disease effectively impossible.

Health experts and advocates for HIV patients say that rather than deterring behavior that could transmit the virus, such laws perpetuate stigma about the disease that can prevent people from getting diagnosed or treated.

North Carolina and Michigan recently updated their HIV policies to exempt HIV patients from prosecution if they’re on medication that has suppressed their virus. A Louisiana law that took effect in August 2018 allows defendants to challenge a charge of exposing someone to HIV by presenting evidence that a doctor advised them they weren’t infectious.

Many advocates say the new policies create an underclass of people who lack access to drugs and are therefore still vulnerable to prosecution. They say states should instead decriminalize HIV exposure altogether unless the person intends to infect someone.

“We shouldn’t be creating laws that create additional strata and divisiveness among already marginalized populations,” said Eric Paulk, deputy director of Georgia Equality.

The fight comes as the Trump administration aims to eradicate HIV — the virus that causes AIDS — by 2030.

The laws’ defenders point to statistics showing tens of thousands of new HIV diagnoses each year and say that although the disease may not be a death sentence anymore, it still requires a lifetime of expensive medical treatment.

The Arkansas attorney general’s office filed a brief last year in Johnson’s case rejecting the argument that criminalizing HIV exposure no longer served any purpose.

“HIV remains a serious threat to public health,” it wrote.

In Booth and Johnson’s case, they met through a gay dating app.

According to Booth, Johnson denied he was HIV positive before they had unprotected sex. Johnson, 26, said he didn’t remember discussing his HIV status.

A plea deal that prosecutors offered Johnson shows officials were mindful of advances in the science around HIV, said John Johnson, chief deputy prosecutor in Pulaski County. The deal allowed the accused man to avoid prison time and have his record expunged.

But prosecutors also wanted to promote the importance of disclosing HIV to potential sexual partners, he said.

“The flip side of this coin is that there is a victim to this crime,” the prosecutor said.

People with HIV who are on antiretroviral drugs that keep their viral load below a specific threshold have “effectively no risk” of transmitting HIV, according to the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. But as of 2016, only a little more than half of the estimated 1.1 million people living with HIV in the U.S. were virally suppressed, the CDC says.

Sarah Lewis Peel, spokeswoman for North Carolina’s Department of Health and Human Services, said in an email that her state’s new policy ensures HIV prevention and control strategies are “firmly rooted in science.” Responding to criticism that the change leaves some people behind, she listed multiple programs that cover HIV medication.

Critics say states should decriminalize HIV exposure altogether unless there’s intent to infect someone. That would reflect the reality that HIV is manageable and not easy to contract, dozens of advocacy groups said in a July 2017 consensus statement.

Georgia may be headed in that direction. Pending legislation would require intent to transmit HIV for a prosecution.

It’s not clear how many people have faced prosecution under HIV laws around the country, but data from two states analyzed by a think tank at the University of California, Los Angeles, School of Law indicate they aren’t isolated occurrences. Florida and Georgia authorities made nearly 1,500 arrests on suspicion of HIV-related crimes from the 1980s through 2017, hundreds of which resulted in convictions, according to the Williams Institute.

Booth said he tested positive for HIV after his encounter with Johnson. Johnson’s doctor, Nathaniel Smith, told The Associated Press that Booth couldn’t have contracted HIV from Johnson because a lab test around the time of their encounter showed Johnson’s viral load was too low. Smith, who testified in Johnson’s case, also directs the Arkansas Department of Health.

Johnson pleaded no contest in February to aggravated assault as part of his deal with prosecutors and was sentenced to five years’ probation. He would have faced up to 30 years behind bars and the possibility of having to register as a sex offender had a jury convicted him of the HIV-exposure charge.

He has a new job helping people manage their diets but said his arrest and prosecution left a scar.

“It did make me more closed off,” he said.

Booth said he has sympathy for what Johnson went through but stands by his decision to tell police.

“It was something that needed to be done,” he said.

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

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

Google translation, scroll down for Spanish article

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Update]Zimbabwe: Bill to repeal legal provision that criminalises “wilful” transmission of HIV now set to be tabled before Parliament for debate

Source: Chronicle, July 22,2019

Government moves to decriminalise HIV transmission

Zvamaida Murwira, Harare Bureau

GOVERNMENT has moved to decriminalise wilful transmission of HIV to a partner after it gazetted the Marriages Bill that seeks to repeal a legal provision that makes it an offence.

The Marriages Bill, which was gazetted last Friday, decriminalises the transmission of HIV and Aids to another partner, as Government seeks to keep abreast with international standards.

The Bill is now set to be tabled before Parliament for debate.

Section 53 of the Marriages Bill repealed Section 79 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act which makes it an offence to transmit HIV to a partner.

Section 79 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act (Chapter 9:23) titled “Deliberate transmission of HIV” states that, “(1) any person who

(a) Knowing that he or she is infected with HIV; or

(b) realising that there is a real risk or possibility that he or she is infected with HIV; intentionally does anything or permits the doing of anything which he or she knows will infect, or does anything which he or she realises involves a real risk or possibility of infecting another person with HIV, shall be guilty of deliberate transmission of HIV, whether or not he or she is married to that other person, and shall be liable to imprisonment for a period not exceeding twenty years.”

Early this year, Justice, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs Minister Ziyambi Ziyambi told Parliament that the global thinking was that the law stigmatised people living with HIV and Aids.

He said initially when the law was enacted, the thinking was that it would help to fight the spread of the disease by criminalising those that transmit it to partners willingly.

Accused persons that have been charged under the law were alleged to have unprotected sex with their spouses knowing that they were infected with HIV.

Proponents who argued for the abolishment of the law argued that at present medical evidence did not determine which of the adult partners was infected first if one was not a virgin at the point of the alleged transmission.

In the past, those charged under the law have challenged the constitutionality of Section 79 of the Criminal law, arguing that their right under section 23 of the Constitution not to be discriminated against on any basis including HIV and Aids status was being violated.

They also argued that their right to protection of the law under section 18 was being violated because the offence in question was so wide, broad and vague.

The challenge to the constitutionality of this offence was focused on the species of this offence requiring only that when the accused had sex with another person, the accused realised the real risk or possibility that he or she was infected with HIV and that there was a real risk that the other person will be infected.

Counsel for the applicants argued that this formulation of the offence violated the constitutional right to protection of law as it was conjectural and vague.

They contended that innocent persons were in danger of being convicted under this provision.

It was argued that there were other ways of HIV and Aids transmission like victims of syringes known to have been contaminated with HIV.

Those who called for the repeal of the law also cited Justice Edwin Cameron, an HIV-positive Justice of the Supreme Court of Appeal in South Africa who said:

“The use of criminal law to address HIV infection is inappropriate except in rare cases in which a person acts with conscious intent to transmit HIV and does so.”

In the past, UNAIDS organisation has urged “governments to limit criminalisation to cases of intentional transmission.”

Source: Bulawayo 24 news, May 11, 2019

HIV/Aids transmission law repeal approved by Cabinet

The Marriages Amendment Bill which will repeal a legal provision that criminalises “wilful” transmission of HIV to a partner has been approved by Cabinet.

Justice, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs Minister Ziyambi Ziyambi said a Clause in the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act that criminalises transmission of HIV by one partner to another would be repealed.

Minister Ziyambi said this yesterday in Harare while responding to questions from journalists during a post Cabinet briefing which was chaired by Environment, Tourism and Hospitality Industry Minister, Prisca Mupfumira.

He said the Marriages Amendment Bill which was approved by Cabinet would also repeal that Clause of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act.

“Yes, indeed Cabinet approved that we repeal the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act where it speaks about these criminalisation so we will repeal the Criminal Code in this regard,” said Minister Ziyambi.

The Marriages Amendment Bill will soon be gazetted before it is tabled before Parliament for debate.

The decision to decriminalise transmission of HIV dovetails with what Minister Ziyambi told Parliament earlier this year.

In March, Minister Ziyambi made an assurance to repeal the Clause during a question and answer session after Zengeza West legislator Mr Job Sikhala (MDC-Alliance) had asked if Government was considering amending the law which criminalise transmission of HIV.

“When this legislation came into effect, the thinking then was that we need to control the spread of HIV by criminalising those who transmit it to partners knowingly. But the global thinking now is that that law stigmatises people living with HIV and studies have shown that it does not produce the results that were intended. What the Ministry is going to do is to repeal that section of the law and ensure that we keep up with modern trends in the world,” said Minister Ziyambi in the National Assembly.

He said the fastest way of doing it was to incorporate the provision in the Marriages Amendment Bill.

Earlier on Minister Mupfumira said Cabinet approved the Coroner’s Office Bill.

She said the Bill sought to help safeguard human lives through facilitating specialising investigation of preventable deaths and identification of deceased persons.

“The country has previously relied on expatriates for the specialised investigations required to conclude such cases, which arrangement has now become unsustainable. In more precise terms, the Bill will establish an efficient coroner system to look into the cause of death in the following circumstances among deaths that occur without a medical doctor’s attention, surgical operation table deaths and deaths while in jail, police custody or other central authority control,” said Minister Mupfumira.