USA: New report from Williams Institute shows HIV-related arrests in Louisiana are disproportionately based on race

Black men account for 91% of HIV-related arrests in Louisiana

A new data interactive looks at the impact of HIV criminal laws on people living with HIV in nine states, including Louisiana

Since 2011, as many as 176 people have had contact with Louisiana’s criminal legal system because of allegations of HIV crimes, according to a new report by the Williams Institute at UCLA School of Law. HIV-related crimes are disproportionately enforced based on race and sex. In Louisiana, Black men represent 15% of the state population and 44% of people living with HIV, but 91% of those arrested for an HIV crime.

Using data obtained from the Louisiana Incident-Based Reporting System and from the state’s most populous parishes, researchers found that enforcement of HIV crimes is concentrated in East Baton Rouge Parish, Orleans Parish, and Calcasieu Parish. Furthermore, the number of HIV incidents—or interactions with law enforcement involving allegations of HIV crimes—is not declining over time.

HIV criminalization is a term used to describe laws that either criminalize otherwise legal conduct or increase the penalties for illegal conduct based upon a person’s HIV-positive status. Nearly two-thirds of U.S. states and territories currently have laws that criminalize people living with HIV.

A new data interactive looks at the impact of HIV criminal laws on people living with HIV in nine states, including Louisiana.

Louisiana has one criminal law related to HIV, which makes it a felony for a person who knows of their HIV-positive status to intentionally expose another person to HIV through sexual contact or other means without consent. The maximum sentence for an intentional exposure conviction is 10 years, and people convicted of an HIV crime are required to register on the state’s sex offender registry for at least 15 years.

Louisiana’s HIV criminal law does not require actual transmission, intent to transmit, or even the possibility of transmission to sustain a conviction. Between 2011 and 2022, incarceration for HIV crimes cost Louisiana at least $6.5 million.

“The cost of Louisiana’s HIV criminal law is likely much higher. Even with only partial access to the state’s criminal enforcement data, the trends were dramatic,” said lead author Nathan Cisneros, HIV Criminalization Analyst at the Williams Institute. “Louisiana’s HIV criminal law may undermine the state’s public health efforts by deterring the communities most impacted by HIV, including people of color and sex workers, from seeking testing and treatment.”

KEY FINDINGS

Most HIV criminal incidents (80%) in Louisiana involved only allegations of an HIV-related crime; no other crimes were alleged in the incidents.
Black people—and especially Black men—were the majority of people identified as suspects and arrested for HIV-related crimes in Louisiana.
- Across the state, 63% of suspects were Black and 45% were Black men. For incidents that resulted in arrest, all of those arrested were Black and 91% were Black men.
- In New Orleans, close to 80% of all suspects were identified as Black and 58% were Black men.
Black people and women were overrepresented among victims of HIV-related incidents.
- Across the state, Black women and white women each represented 28% of all victims.
- In New Orleans, Black men were 58% of all victims.
Since 1998, there have been at least 47 separate HIV-related convictions resulting in sex offender registration, involving 43 people.
Most people (63%) on the sex offender registry because of an HIV-related conviction are on the registry only because of the HIV-related conviction.
Three-quarters of people on the sex offender registry for an HIV-related conviction were Black.
Guilty outcomes resulted in an average sentence of 4.3 years.
Incarcerating people for HIV-related charges has cost Louisiana at least $6.5 million.

This report is part of a series of reports examining the ongoing impact of state HIV criminalization laws on people living with HIV. Take a look at our new data interactive summarizing the findings of our research.

Read the report

Uzbekistan: Draft law on compulsory HIV testing introduces notion of “dangerous group” and “potential HIV carriers”

Uzbekistan will forcibly test sex workers and MSM for HIV

Translated via Deepl.com. For article in Russian, please scroll down.

A draft law on compulsory HIV testing of sex workers, men who have sex with men and drug users is under discussion in Uzbekistan. They would reportedly be detected during “special preventive operations”. The author of the project is the country’s Interior Ministry, Gazeta.uz reported.

It is planned that the procedure will take effect on 1 January 2023, and the discussion will last until 10 September 2022.

The document introduced the notion of a “dangerous group” – “potential HIV carriers”, i.e., those who need to be tested. This includes sex workers, drug users, men who have sex with men and those who are only suspected. That is, everyone who has been in contact with a “dangerous group” as well as people who are “suspected of having such an affair” will be screened.

They will be identified through a process of special investigative measures, the mechanism of which is not specified. There is a suggestion that the decision on the medical examination will be made by internal affairs officers.

As a reminder, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan are the last countries in Central Asia to criminalise same-sex contacts.

Earlier, we wrote that Singapore (Southeast Asia) had repealed the law criminalising consensual sex between men, which had been in force since 1938.

В Узбекистане будут принудительно тестировать на ВИЧ секс-работниц и МСМ

В Узбекистане обсуждается проект о принудительном тестировании на ВИЧ секс-работниц, мужчин, практикующих секс с мужчинами, и наркопотребителей. Сообщается, что выявлять их будут во время «специальных оперативно-профилактических мероприятий». Автором проекта является Министерство внутренних дел страны, сообщает «Газета.uz».

Планируется, что данный порядок вступит в силу с 1 января 2023 года, а обсуждение продлится до 10 сентября 2022 года.

В документе появилось понятие «опасная группа» — это «потенциальные носители ВИЧ», то есть те, кому нужно провести тестирование. Сюда входят работники секс-бизнеса, наркопотребители, мужчины, практикующие секс с мужчинами, а также те, кто только подозревается. То есть обследование будут проводить всем, кто контактировал с «опасной группой», а также людям, которые «подозревается в подобных связях».

Вычислять их будут в процессе специальных розыскных мероприятий, механизм которых не прописан. Есть предположение, что решение о медицинском обследовании будут принимать сотрудники отдела внутренних дел.

Напомним, что Узбекистан и Туркменистан являются последними странами в Центральной Азии, где существует уголовная ответственность за однополые контакты.

Ранее мы писали о том, что в Сингапуре (Юго-Восточная Азия) отменили закон, криминализирующий сексуальные отношения между мужчинами по обоюдному согласию, который действовал с 1938 года.

Why people living with HIV should not be criminalised for donating blood

Preventing the transmission of blood-borne infection by imposing limitations on the donation of blood is an important and legitimate public health objective.

Since the beginning of the HIV epidemic, certain groups – including, but not limited to, gay men and other men who have sex with men – have been subjected to restrictions on their ability to give blood.

Sustained advocacy by gay rights organisations in many high-income countries has focused on the discriminatory nature of these so-called ‘gay blood bans’, highlighting significant advances in blood screening capabilities. This has led to a general softening of restrictions on blood donations for gay men in many of these countries – allowing donations with ‘deferral periods’, or allowing donations based on individual risk assessments.

However, this advocacy has generally not translated into the removal of HIV-specific criminal laws for donating blood, nor has there been a call for a moratorium on singling out people living with HIV for donating blood using non-HIV-specific general criminal laws – even though many of the same public health and human rights arguments apply to both the so-called ‘gay blood bans’ and to HIV criminalisation more generally.

That is why today, the HIV Justice Network has published Bad Blood: Criminalisation of Blood Donations by People Living with HIV. The report was written by Elliot Hatt and edited by Edwin J Bernard, based on research undertaken by Sylvie Beaumont, with additional input provided by Sarai Chisala-Tempelhoff and Paul Kidd (HIV Justice Network’s Supervisory Board); Sean Strub (Sero Project) and Robert James (University of Sussex).

We found that 37 jurisdictions in 22 countries maintain laws that criminalise people with HIV for donating blood. Notably, 15 jurisdictions in the United States (US) have laws which specifically criminalise blood donations by people living with HIV, while four US states – California, Illinois, Iowa, and Virginia – have repealed laws which previously criminalised this conduct.

Although prosecutions are relatively rare, we are aware of at least 20 cases relating to blood donation since 1987. Half of these cases have been reported in Singapore, including two as recently as 2021.

We argue that the criminalisation of blood donations by people with HIV is a disproportionate measure – even if the aim of protecting public health through the prevention of transfusion-transmitted infection is legitimate – and is the result of both HIV-related stigma and homophobia. It is not supported by science.

There is no good reason for any country or jurisdiction to have HIV-specific criminal laws – whether they focus on blood donation or on sexual exposure or transmission. HIV-specific criminal laws are discriminatory and stigmatising, especially since people with other serious blood borne infections – including hepatitis B and C and syphilis – are not singled out with specific laws, nor for prosecution under general criminal laws.

Blood donation criminal laws focused on HIV should be repealed, prosecutions based on general laws should end, and instead science-informed measures – such as individual donor risk assessments and universal blood screening – should be relied on to protect the public against transfusion-transmitted infection.

Read the report at: https://www.hivjustice.net/publication/badblood

US: Indiana legislators and other stakeholders meet to discuss changes to HIV criminal laws

HIV laws, funding for mental health in Indiana justice system weighed by lawmakers

Doctors and other advocates said multiple provisions in Indiana code regarding HIV are outdated and discriminatory.

Lawmakers and other stakeholders on Tuesday discussed possible changes to Indiana laws concerning HIV-specific criminal penalties and sentence enhancements.

The Republican-led summer study committee also weighed additional funding and other resources for the state’s psychiatric hospitals and community care centers that serve incarcerated individuals who have mental health or behavioral concerns.

Recommendations from the committee could result in proposed legislation during the next session in January.

Advocates push for changes to state’s HIV laws

Doctors and other advocates who spoke before the committee maintained that multiple provisions in Indiana code regarding HIV are outdated. They said the laws do little to prevent transmission and instead promote stigma and discrimination.

That includes current provisions that:

Require those with HIV or Hepatitis B to warn other people that they could be at risk of contracting the disease when engaging in sexual activity or sharing needles — even when transmission is not possible
Make it a felony for HIV-positive persons to donate or sell their semen, blood or plasma
Outline sentence enhancement charges that make it a felony for HIV-positive persons to expose others to any bodily fluid, including those known not to transmit HIV, such as saliva

Indiana is one of 20 states that have not modernized or repealed HIV criminal laws since they were enacted in the 1990s — during the peak of the HIV/AIDS epidemic.

“I’m deeply concerned that Indiana’s HIV criminal laws don’t reflect current scientific knowledge about this condition,” said Dr. Bree Weaver, an HIV specialist with the Indiana University School of Medicine. “These laws were written decades ago, during a time of limited medical understanding and tremendous fear of HIV and the people living with it.”

Weaver emphasized that scientific developments in the last 20 years have “substantially changed the realities” of living with HIV, noting that new science has also expanded researchers’ understanding about how the disease is — and is not — transmitted. It’s commonly — but incorrectly — assumed that spitting and biting are two forms of reasonable transmission, she said.

Dr. Carrie Foote, director of Indiana’s HIV Modernization Movement, said the group has in recent years worked with legislators to update the Indiana code “with more person-centered language, to improve how we talk about HIV.”

Past attempts at carrying such a bill in the Indiana General Assembly have failed, however — including in the most recent 2022 session.

Rep. John Young, R-Franklin, said during the meeting on Tuesday that while he believes the law should be modernized, he thinks the sentencing enhancement should remain in effect.

“No one should be forced to disclose, but I don’t see a problem with somebody being stigmatized because they committed a crime,” Young said. He specifically referenced law enforcement officers who could be spit on by aggressive individuals who mean to “intentionally” spread HIV during arrests, for example.

Foote, who has lived with HIV for 34 years, disagreed with that sentiment.

“Despite people living extremely well, doing what everybody else does in life — working, having families, and that sort of thing — we continue to face stigma in many areas of our life, and possible criminalization under Indiana law, due to our HIV status,” she said.

Newly diagnosed HIV cases in Indiana have stayed fairly stable in recent years, although there has been a slight uptick in 2022, said Jeremy Turner, director of the HIV, STD, and Viral Hepatitis Division at the Indiana Department of Health (IDOH). Still, AIDS cases continue to decline.

Sexual intercourse remains the number one route for HIV transmission in Indiana, even despite an increase of injections spurred by the opioid epidemic, Turner continued.

To help keep case numbers down, the state health department funds multiple initiatives to help Hoosiers prevent, diagnose and treat HIV and Hepatitis. The federal government has also made it easier for high-risk populations to access PrEP, a medicine taken to prevent getting HIV.

Foote recommended that lawmakers amend the criminal law to be based on the criminal intent to infect and transmit HIV. She added that a criminal law should only include punitive measures that are proportionate to the harm. The law also should not be specific to HIV, and must exclude diseases that are airborne or casually transmitted.

“If the HIV epidemic started today, and was a chronic, manageable condition with multiple methods of prevention available like we have today, we would not be enacting these laws,” Foote said. “We know this because we are protecting the public’s health without the use of the criminal laws for recent serious communicable disease challenges in our state such as Syphilis, COVID-19, and now monkeypox.”

Health care officials call for psychiatric hospital funding revamp

Separately, members of the study summer committee discussed a new model for certified community behavioral health clinics that would better ensure patients and offenders from Indiana psychiatric hospitals and the Indiana Department of Correction are connected with appropriate care upon their release.

Community leaders and advocates said their intention is to cut down the number of people returning to jail after they’ve received mental health and addiction recovery services.

People who were taken to jail and identified as having mental health needs are 1.5 times more likely than anyone else to be rearrested within six months, said Bernice Corley with the Indiana Public Defender Council.

She pointed to a new pilot program in Marion County, where a “holistic model” will be tested next year to help keep services available to incarcerated individuals during and after conviction. The goal is to help reduce recidivism and decrease the number of cases in Indiana’s criminal justice system.

“What we’re proposing here is looking at public defense, not in the representation once the client is guilty, but moving that mark of representation and wraparound services to that person post-conviction, as well as when they’re transitioning back into the community, and helping stabilize them,” Corley said, adding that the model could be considered on a larger, statewide level.

Jay Chaudhary, who oversees the Indiana Family and Social Services Administration’s Division of Mental Health and Addiction, said the six state psychiatric hospitals in Indiana currently treat about 600 individuals.

At least 83 of those people are ready to be discharged now but can’t be released yet, largely because of issues finding appropriate housing placements. He said that costs the state roughly $1,200-$1,500 per day for each person to be housed in a state hospital.

“Housing and transportation remain huge barriers to care,” Chaudhary said. “It’s hard to treat somebody with a mental illness if they don’t have stable housing, or if they can’t get the treatment.”

Representing Indiana’s 24 community mental health centers — which provide an array of behavioral health and addiction services — George Hurd said run-down group-living sites, a statewide shortage of 5,000 to 7,00 therapists, and difficulties that come with serving an aging population of Hoosiers in need of services prevents those in the system from accessing the best care possible.

Funding for community health centers is currently highly dependent on donations, Hurd said. Additional state dollars could help.

“We’ve done an excellent job reducing the number of persons in state operated-facilities,” Hurd said, noting that Indiana psychiatric hospitals housed some 50,000 at their peak. “The system has reached a point where more stable and consistent funding is needed to meet the current community safety net, and to advance it.”

Canada: Ruling from Ontario court of appeal opens the door for other people with HIV to seek to have their convictions overturned

‘I was made out to be a monster’: With her conviction for not disclosing her HIV status now overturned, one woman wants Canada’s laws to change

Jennifer Murphy was convicted for not disclosing her HIV status to a sexual partner, despite being unable to transmit the virus.

When Jennifer Murphy was found guilty of aggravated sexual assault, her face was splashed all over the news — her life changed due to a conviction that has now been overturned.

The 2013 conviction in a Barrie, Ont. courtroom was for not disclosing her HIV-positive status to a sexual partner in a consensual encounter. At the time, she had an undetectable viral load thanks to medication, and was therefore unable to transmit the virus.

“I was made out to be a monster,” she said in a statement to the Star last week.

Murphy was sentenced to more than three years in prison, minus 15 months for time served in pre-sentence custody.

“It was all over the news and my family and friends had to read that and feel the pain and agony,” she said. “They had to worry about their daughter or their mother and what would happen to her.”

Canadian law requires an individual living with HIV to disclose their status to a sexual partner if there is a realistic possibility of transmission. At the time of Murphy’s conviction, it was generally understood within the legal system that disclosure was not necessary if the individual had both a low viral load and used a condom. No condom was used in the Murphy case.

Earlier this month, the Ontario Court of Appeal overturned Murphy’s conviction and entered an acquittal, accepting fresh expert evidence that Murphy’s undetectable viral load meant there was no realistic possibility of transmission of the virus.

The decision opens the door for other people with HIV in Ontario, found guilty in situations similar to Murphy’s, to seek to have their convictions overturned.

“I want them to get justice, too,” she said.

The ruling also comes as the federal government plans to reform the law on HIV nondisclosure, impacting the whole country — a move advocates hope will see the justice system finally recognize that the science has evolved around HIV, and that a person with an undetectable viral load simply cannot transmit the virus.

They say the ongoing criminalization of HIV nondisclosure continues to perpetuate stigma against people living with HIV.

“The community has been calling on the government to act for years,” said Alexander McClelland, assistant professor at the Institute of criminology and criminal justice at Carleton University, and a member of the Canadian Coalition to Reform HIV Criminalization.

“People living with HIV, legal experts, have been calling out the heinous record of Canada being a leading country in the world for criminalizing HIV nondisclosure.”

There are a number of reasons why a person doesn’t disclose their HIV status to a sexual partner, he said, including fear of violence.

“Our faces are on the covers of newspapers framed as violent perpetrators,” he said. “As someone who has done research on this, I can tell you nothing is further from the truth. People living with HIV want to protect their partners, they want to protect themselves, they want to live lawfully and freely and be able to have positive, healthy sex lives.”

As Murphy put it, “Right now, you can be convicted despite doing everything right — taking medication and suppressing your viral load.”

After several months of community consultation, the coalition released its second consensus statement in July, calling for changes to the Criminal Code that would limit prosecutions to the “very rare” instance where there was intentional, actual transmission of the virus.

The statement, signed by dozens of organizations, describes Canada as a “global hot spot” for nondisclosure prosecutions, saying there had been more than 220 by the end of last year, with the Black, Indigenous and gay communities being disproportionately affected.

There are no HIV-specific offences in the Criminal Code. The consensus statement points out that police and prosecutors will typically use the charge of aggravated sexual assault in nondisclosure cases, which carries a maximum prison term of life, mandatory designation as a sex offender, and “almost certain deportation” for non-citizens.

Murphy was required to take sex offender counselling in prison, “which was degrading and humiliating,” and she also had to deal with other inmates also knowing about her case.

“The outside world was judging me while the inside world was doing the same,” she said. “I would put myself in segregation just to get away from everyone.”

The federal government announced at the end of July that it will hold consultations in October “on how best to modernize the criminal justice system’s response to nondisclosure of HIV status” given the scientific evidence on sexual transmission of HIV.

Faced with criticism as to whether further consultation is necessary, Justice Minister David Lametti said in an interview last week it will not be lengthy, but rather “focused and targeted” with expert advocacy groups.

“I’m going to try to put an end, a positive end, to all of this as soon as possible,” he said. “No one should underestimate my good faith on this.”

After studying the issue, the House of Commons standing committee on justice recommended in 2019 that the government create a specific Criminal Code offence for actual transmission of infectious diseases, including HIV. The coalition is against adding an HIV-specific offence to the code for fear of perpetuating further stigma.

“I understand very well the point that such an offence would, in all likelihood, lead to continued stigmatization of people living with HIV and that is something we do not want to do,” Lametti said.

The coalition is calling for Criminal Code reform that would prohibit the ability to prosecute nondisclosure cases under sexual assault offences, and to limit the use of any other offence to intentional, actual transmission of the virus, while stating that the use of the criminal law should be a measure of last resort.

“The science around HIV has evolved, we know more now,” Lametti said. “We know that there’s stigma that’s been attached, that sexual assault laws are not appropriate and cumbersome and lead to results that are frankly unjust.”

An undetectable viral load can be achieved by taking medication, and essentially means “you cannot see the virus based on the conventional systems that we have to detect it,” said infectious diseases physician Dr. Isaac Bogoch. He highlighted a slogan that has gained much traction in recent years: U = U, undetectable equals untransmittable.

“It’s not only scientifically accurate, but it’s a way that we can help destigmatize HIV infection because it’s simple, it’s easy to understand, and it’s universal,” said Bogoch, a physician with the HIV Clinic at Toronto General Hospital.

“These are individuals who will not be able to transmit HIV to others. They just won’t.”

It was a 2012 Supreme Court of Canada decision known as R. v. Mabior that found a low viral load and condom were required to avoid prosecution for HIV nondisclosure, and it was that standard that was applied to Murphy’s case in 2013. But the top court also said the double requirement “does not preclude the common law from adapting to future advances in treatment.”

Murphy’s appeal lawyer, Colleen McKeown, asked the Court of Appeal to “identify a new set of circumstances” in which there’s no realistic possibility of transmission — and therefore disclosure is not necessary — namely that the person has a suppressed viral load and is taking antiretroviral medication. The court’s ruling on that issue is pending.

“I hope that it offers a path forward for people who might be in a similar situation to see their convictions overturned as well,” McKeown said of the Murphy appeal. She said even individuals who pleaded guilty when the “legal landscape” was different could take steps to see if they could get their convictions overturned.

In the years since the Mabior decision, at least four provinces — Ontario, Quebec, British Columbia and Alberta — have adopted a mix of official guidelines and unofficial policies to curb HIV nondisclosure prosecutions.

In the territories, where federal prosecutors handle criminal cases, Crown attorneys have been told not to prosecute if there is an undetectable viral load, and to “generally” not prosecute where a condom was used or if the person engaged only in oral sex, even if the viral load was not suppressed.

In Ontario, Crowns were instructed through provincial guidelines in 2017 not to prosecute if the individual is on medication and had an undetectable viral load for at least six months, but is silent on condom use alone.

“The result of prosecutorial guidance is you get an inconsistent approach across Canada,” said India Annamanthadoo, policy analyst at the HIV Legal Network and member of the coalition. “Why we’re advocating for Criminal Code reform is that it will be a consistent approach across Canada.”

McClelland added that “being someone living with HIV, having an inconsistent understanding or uncertainty about what I could be prosecuted with and where, is a completely unreasonable way to live a life in Canada as a Canadian resident.”

The coalition is also calling on the government to end the deportation of non-citizens following a conviction, and to review past convictions.

“There are a lot of people who were convicted in discriminatory and unscientific circumstances and those convictions need to be reviewed,” said Annamanthadoo, “so people do not have to live under the label of a criminal and a sex offender.”

Murphy said she’s still absorbing the impact of the Court of Appeal’s decision.

“I am worried that, even with my conviction overturned, there will still be people who will judge me. I shouldn’t have to live with it, but I do,” she said. “It doesn’t erase the stories on the internet. All the negative publicity will still be there.”

But she said it means she gets to focus on changing the law, urging the federal government to take action and finally provide some certainty to people living with HIV.

“It’s a human rights issue. It discriminates against people who have an illness,” she said.

“I want the public to know that people with a suppressed viral load pose no threat to anyone.”

United Nations Development Program continues to advocate for the global decriminalization of HIV

Decriminalization of HIV is ‘Scientifically Proven and Morally Correct’

Across the globe, one hundred and thirty-four countries are criminalized or prosecuted due to criminal laws against HIV transmission, non-disclosure and exposure. Lower rates of HIV treatment and viral suppression are present and more likely in those countries that criminalize the virus. In a recent article by Mandeep Dhaliwal, director of the HIV and Health Group for the United Nations Development Program, states that the decriminalization of HIV is “scientifically proven and morally correct.”

Laws that target people living with HIV hinder the progress of the United Nations’ political declaration to ends AIDS by 2030, which is supported by 165 countries.

Dhaliwal explains that criminalization is constructively harmful, cost lives, and wastes money. HIV criminalization targets fixed populations that include sex workers, men that have sex with men, transgender people, needle users and their partners, and other marginalized groups. In 2021, these groups, combined, accounted for 70 percent of new HIV cases.

In order to reach the goal to end HIV as a public health threat, the idea to achieve “10-10-10.” The 10-10-10 initiative is a set of targets that encourages countries to repeal punitive laws and policies in conflict with ending stigma, discrimination, and gender-based violence.

Specifically the targets would need to achieve: “less than 10 percent of people living with HIV and key populations experiencing stigma and discrimination; less than 10 percent of people living with HIV, women and girls, and key populations experiencing gender-based inequalities and gender-based violence; and less than 10 percent of countries with legal and policy environments that deny or limit access to HIV services.”

Dhaliwal also helped assemble the Global Commission on HIV and the Law, which works to help countries and their communities end discriminatory laws that wrongfully punish people, perpetuate illness and poverty, and prevent the progress of ending HIV.

Mexico: 30 states retain the crime of “danger of contagion” in their local penal codes

Danger of contagion’, the offence punishable in 30 states and organisations call for repeal to avoid stigmatisation

Automated translation via Deepl.com – For article in Spanish please scroll down.

In Mexico, with the exception of Aguascalientes and San Luis Potosí, 30 states retain the crime of “danger of contagion” in their local penal codes, a remnant from decades ago that only contributes to the stigmatisation and persecution of people living with HIV.

Coahuila and Tamaulipas provide penalties for “whoever transmits AIDS” in particular, but seven other states – Baja California, Oaxaca, Zacatecas, Puebla, Veracruz, Sonora, Yucatan and Nayarit – directly criminalise those who have a sexually transmitted infection and engage in conduct that could be considered “dangerous” to the health of another person.

Zacatecas and Nayarit also penalise a woman with a disease or syphilis who breastfeeds a baby.

In 17 states, criminal penalties imposed on a person for allegedly transmitting a disease can be aggravated by up to several years in prison, according to the study “La legislación mexicana en materia de VIH y sida. Its impact on people living with HIV”, carried out by the Mexican Network of Organisations against the Criminalisation of HIV.

Danger of infection, a crime that contributes to discrimination

The civil codes of Baja California Sur, Guerrero and Baja California specify that people living with HIV are prohibited from marrying.

In 20 states, a person with a chronic or incurable disease cannot be granted guardianship of a minor. Furthermore, in 19 states, a medical certificate stating that one does not have an illness is required as a condition of marriage.

These restrictions make it possible to “undermine some of the rights of people living with HIV,” the document warns.

In contrast, to guarantee the right to non-discrimination of people living with HIV, only 14 states consider HIV testing without consent or as a requirement for employment to be discriminatory.

Only 12 states identify stigmatising or violating the rights of people living with HIV as a discriminatory action, and only two states have passed and maintain HIV-specific laws.

“To begin with, the crime of contagion is a crime that is based on an assumption; it is not a crime that is scientifically verifiable, because there are not enough tools to be able to determine who did or did not transmit a virus to another person,” explains Leonardo Bastida, one of the authors of the analysis, in an interview.

Bastida says that there is still a lot of stigmatisation towards those living with HIV or who have a virus-related illness, as in the case of COVID-19.

“This causes people to be afraid of the situation, that they are not interested in getting diagnosed in order to avoid problems, because in a certain way, seeing this as something bad, does not generate a sense of responsibility, of personal and collective care.

At the same time, it also inhibits the generation of public health policies that should be focused on reducing the number of new infections; it also sends a message of negativity, guilt and punishment, when with the scientific advances that exist to date, the majority of people living with HIV can achieve undetectability and, therefore, non-transmissibility of the virus.

“There are codes that are very specific, that if the disease is contagious or puts people’s lives in danger; many adjectives are used that do not correspond to reality, so this image is given of associating it with something bad and that the person living with HIV, by that simple fact, is a risk factor, when in reality the risk factors are others; it generates a contradictory and somewhat ambiguous message for society,” adds Bastida.

Most of the articles in penal codes that punish the crime of “danger of contagion” came into force between 1920 and 1930, that is, they are almost 100 years old. Since 2015, attempts have been made to reform these articles, not to eliminate them, but to establish stronger sentences.

In at least seven states, cases have been prosecuted on the basis of this crime: 15 in Veracruz, 14 in Sonora, five in Tamaulipas, four in the State of Mexico, three in Chihuahua, one in Nuevo León and one in Mexico City.

“The prosecutors’ offices, seeing it in force in the law, insist on taking it up again; and often the argument is that the transmission is on purpose, a situation that cannot be ruled out, but for that there are already crimes of injury in the penal codes themselves, so a transmission with malice aforethought could be included in those terms. It is clearer than leaving an ambiguous offence, which is also only based on assumptions,” Bastida explains.

The danger lies in the fact that by accusing someone of the crime, if that person tests reactive, it is enough to prosecute them, when the only thing that is being checked is their state of health, but not whether or not they transmitted HIV.

“It is important to understand that what we are sanctioning is a belief, a hypothesis, but we are not sanctioning concrete facts,” he adds.

Promoting work with local legislatures

Antonio Matus, from the organisation AHF, maintains that the general tendency at the moment is to penalise, to punish for everything and to increase the number of crimes, so that when a criminal offence is eliminated there may be a general perception that there is injustice, which could explain the resistance in the legislative sphere to repeal this offence.

The group is currently working on legislative advocacy to present initiatives in Oaxaca, Veracruz and Guanajuato.

“Other countries have already made progress in this regard, and the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV and AIDS itself has issued several bulletins, in which, when such provisions have been repealed, UNAIDS has publicly acknowledged these actions. One of the most recent cases is in Colombia, where it issued a press statement welcoming the Colombian constitutional court’s decision to repeal the section of the penal code that criminalises HIV transmission,” Matus explained.

Having the legislative analysis in a document is very important because it makes recommendations to both state legislatures and the Congress of the Union to repeal criminal and civil provisions that stigmatize people with HIV.

Similarly, the federal Ministry of Health and CENSIDA are recommended to update NOM-010-SSA2-2010 on HIV prevention and control, which is more than 10 years old. Within it, there could be a provision that avoids criminalisation at the federal level, as it is mandatory.

On 30 April 2018, the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation set a first precedent against the criminalisation of HIV, when it declared invalid the portion of Article 158 of the criminal code of Veracruz, which punishes the crime of danger of contagion, which specifically referred to “sexually transmitted or other infections”.

This ruling followed an action of unconstitutionality brought by the National Human Rights Commission (CNDH) over the legislative reform that added the explicit reference to HIV, sexually transmitted infections and others.

For the state of Nuevo León, an appeal, also promoted by the CNDH, against Article 337 bis, reformed in the context of the pandemic by COVID-19, is still pending.

Meanwhile, in Mexico City, an initiative to repeal the crime of danger of contagion has been presented three times before the local congress without success.

This follows demonstrations and complaints from civil society organisations after the Mexico City District Attorney’s Office publicised the arrest of a man living with HIV for the crime of endangering contagion on 4 June 2021. He was later released on the basis of an injunction.

The Mexico City Council for the Prevention and Elimination of Discrimination established that the criminalisation of danger of contagion fosters a narrative of violence and discrimination, and that the criminal offence represents a repressive vision of sexuality, advancing a punishment for mere danger based on prejudice, which obeys a criminal law alien to the paradigm of human rights and contrary to the principle of dignity.

For Matus, there are all the legal and public policy elements to repeal the crime. Otherwise, if it is transferred to other types of diseases, this type of criminal offence would cause people not to get tested, hide their diagnosis and fear being punished.

The activist argues that this, on a public health level, affects all people, not just those living with HIV.

These kinds of provisions, which may have the good intention of preventing transmission, ignore advances in science, as antiretroviral treatment currently increases defences in such a way that the viral load is reduced to undetectability, a state in which the virus is no longer transmitted.

“Without wishing to point fingers or criminalise people who consider themselves victims of this type of crime, we believe that the option for our society is co-responsibility, that everyone knows, is educated, receives information and is aware of what can happen when having unprotected sex,” he concludes.

‘Peligro de contagio’, el delito que se castiga en 30 estados y organizaciones piden derogarlo para evitar estigmatización

En México, a excepción de Aguascalientes y San Luis Potosí, 30 entidades conservan la tipificación del delito de “peligro de contagio” en sus códigos penales locales, un remanente de hace décadas que solo contribuye a estigmatizar y perseguir a las personas que viven con VIH.

En Coahuila y Tamaulipas se prevén sanciones para “quien transmita el SIDA” en particular, pero otros siete estados –Baja California, Oaxaca, Zacatecas, Puebla, Veracruz, Sonora, Yucatán y Nayarit– penalizan directamente a quienes padezcan una infección de transmisión sexual y tengan conductas susceptibles de considerarse “peligrosas” para la salud de otra persona.

Zacatecas y Nayarit sancionan, además, a la mujer que con alguna enfermedad o sífilis amamante a un bebé.

En 17 estados, las sanciones penales impuestas a una persona por la presunta transmisión de una enfermedad pueden agravarse hasta con varios años de cárcel, según el estudio “La legislación mexicana en materia de VIH y sida. Su impacto en las personas viviendo con VIH”, realizado por la Red Mexicana de Organizaciones contra la Criminalización del VIH.

Peligro de contagio, delito que contribuye a la discriminación

Los códigos civiles de Baja California Sur, Guerrero y Baja California especifican la prohibición de casarse a quienes viven con VIH.

En 20 estados, a una persona con una enfermedad crónica o incurable no puede otorgársele la tutela de un menor. Por otro lado, en 19 estados es obligatorio presentar un certificado médico que especifique que no se padece alguna enfermedad como condición para casarse.

Estas restricciones posibilitan “menoscabar algunos de los derechos de las personas que viven con VIH”, advierte el documento.

En contraste, para garantizar el derecho a la no discriminación de las personas con VIH, solo 14 entidades federativas consideran como discriminatoria la aplicación de pruebas de VIH sin consentimiento o como exigencia para conseguir trabajo.

Solo 12 entidades señalan como acción discriminatoria estigmatizar o vulnerar los derechos de las personas que viven con VIH y únicamente en dos entidades han sido aprobadas y se mantienen vigentes leyes específicas en materia de VIH.

“Para empezar, el delito de contagio es un delito que está sobre un supuesto; no es un delito que sea comprobable científicamente, porque no existen las herramientas suficientes para poder determinar quién transmitió o no a otra persona un virus”, explica en entrevista Leonardo Bastida, uno de los autores del análisis.

Bastida afirma que todavía existe mucha estigmatización hacia quienes viven con VIH o tiene alguna enfermedad relacionada con un virus, como es el caso del COVID-19.

“Esto genera que la gente tenga miedo a la situación, que no le interese diagnosticarse para evitarse problemas, porque de cierta manera al ver esto como algo malo, no se genera una conducta de responsabilidad, de un cuidado personal y colectivo”.

Al mismo tiempo, se inhibe también la generación de políticas de salud pública que deberían estar enfocadas en disminuir el número de nuevas infecciones; además se manda un mensaje de negatividad, culpabilidad y castigo, cuando con los avances científicos que existen hasta ahora, la mayoría de las personas que viven con VIH puede alcanzar la indetectabilidad y, por lo tanto, intransmisibilidad del virus.

“Hay códigos que son muy específicos, que si la enfermedad es contagiosa o pone en peligro la vida de las personas; se le ponen muchos adjetivos que no corresponden a una realidad, entonces se da esta imagen de asociarlo con algo malo y que la persona que vive con VIH, por ese simple hecho, es un factor de riesgo, cuando en realidad los factores de riesgo son otros; genera un mensaje contradictorio y un poco ambiguo para la sociedad”, añade Bastida.

La mayoría de los artículos en códigos penales que sancionan el delito de “peligro de contagio” entraron en vigor entre 1920 y 1930, es decir, tienen casi 100 años de existir.

En al menos siete estados, los casos han llegado a procesos judiciales a partir de la imputación de este delito: 15 en Veracruz, 14 en Sonora, cinco en Tamaulipas, cuatro en el Estado de México, tres en Chihuahua, uno en Nuevo León y uno en Ciudad de México.

“Las fiscalías, al verlo vigente en la ley, insisten en retomarlo; y muchas veces el argumento es que la transmisión es a propósito, situación que no puede descartarse, pero para eso ya existen dentro de los propios códigos penales los delitos de lesiones, entonces podría entrar una transmisión con alevosía en esos términos. Es más claro que dejar un delito ambiguo, que además solo se basa en presuposiciones”, detalla Bastida.

El peligro radica en que con el hecho de acusar a alguien del delito, si esa persona resulta reactiva en una prueba, es suficiente para procesarla judicialmente, cuando lo único que se está comprobando es su estado de salud, pero no si transmitió o no el VIH.

“Se está sancionando una suposición; y es importante entender que lo que estamos sancionando es una creencia, una hipótesis, pero no se están sancionando hechos concretos”, añade.

Impulsan trabajo con legislaturas locales

Antonio Matus, de la organización AHF, sostiene que la tendencia general en este momento es a penalizar, a sancionar por todo y a incrementar el número de delitos, por lo que cuando se elimina un tipo penal puede existir una percepción general de que hay injusticias, lo que podría explicar las resistencias en el ámbito legislativo para derogar este delito.

Actualmente la agrupación está trabajando en la incidencia legislativa para presentar iniciativas en Oaxaca, Veracruz y Guanajuato.

“Otros países ya han avanzado en este aspecto, y el propio programa conjunto de las Naciones Unidas para el VIH y el SIDA ha emitido varios boletines; en ellos, cuando se han derogado este tipo de disposiciones, ONUSIDA ha reconocido de manera pública estas acciones. Uno de los casos más recientes es en Colombia, en donde emitió una declaración de prensa donde agradece la decisión del tribunal constitucional de Colombia de revocar la sección del código penal que criminaliza la transmisión del VIH”, explicó Matus.

Haber concretado el análisis legislativo en un documento es muy importante porque se hacen recomendaciones tanto a las legislaturas estatales como al Congreso de la Unión para derogar las disposiciones penales y civiles que estigmatizan a las personas con VIH.

Del mismo modo, a la Secretaría de Salud federal y a CENSIDA se les recomienda que actualicen la NOM-010-SSA2-2010, en materia de prevención y control del VIH, que tiene más de 10 años. Dentro de ella, podría existir una previsión que evitara la criminalización con alcance a nivel federal, pues es de observancia obligatoria.

El 30 de abril de 2018, la Suprema Corte de Justicia de la Nación sentó un primer precedente contra la criminalización del VIH, cuando declaró inválida la porción del artículo 158 del código penal de Veracruz, que sanciona el delito de peligro de contagio, que refería específicamente a “infecciones de transmisión sexual u otras”.

Esa resolución se dio a partir de una acción de inconstitucionalidad promovida por la Comisión Nacional de los Derechos Humanos (CNDH) por la reforma legislativa que agregaba la referencia explícita al VIH, las infecciones de transmisión sexual y otras.

Para el estado de Nuevo León, aún está pendiente de resolución un recurso, promovido también por la CNDH, contra el artículo 337 bis, reformado en el contexto de la pandemia por COVID-19

En tanto, en la Ciudad de México, una iniciativa para derogar el delito peligro de contagio ha sido presentada tres veces ante el congreso local sin éxito.

Esto a partir de las manifestaciones y reclamos de organizaciones de la sociedad civil tras la difusión por parte de la Fiscalía capitalina de la detención de un hombre que vivía con VIH por el delito peligro de contagio el 4 de junio de 2021. Más tarde, fue liberado gracias a un amparo.

El Consejo para prevenir y eliminar la discriminación de la Ciudad de México estableció que la tipificación del peligro de contagio fomenta una narrativa de violencia y discriminación, y que el tipo penal representa una visión represora de la sexualidad, adelantando un castigo por el mero peligro con base en un prejuicio, lo cual obedece a un derecho penal ajeno al paradigma de los derechos humanos y contrario al principio de dignidad.

Para Matus, existen todos los elementos jurídicos y de política pública para derogar el delito. De lo contrario, si se traslada a otro tipo de enfermedades, este tipo de penal provocaría que la gente no se haga pruebas, oculte su diagnóstico y tema ser sancionado.

El activista sostiene que esto a nivel de salud pública, afecta a todas las personas, no solamente a quienes viven con VIH.

Este tipo de disposiciones, que quizá tengan la buena intención de evitar la trasmisión, ignoran los avances de la ciencia, pues el tratamiento antirretroviral en este momento aumenta las defensas de tal manera que la carga viral se reduce hasta la indetectabilidad, un estado en el que ya no se transmite el virus.

“Sin ánimo de señalar o criminalizar a las personas que se consideran víctimas de este tipo de delitos, consideramos que la opción para nuestra sociedad es la corresponsabilidad, que cada quien sepa, esté educado, reciba información y tome conciencia de qué puede pasar al momento de tener relaciones sexuales no protegidas”, concluye.

Mexico: New HIV law using stigmatising and obsolete language sparks request for constitutional challenge

Request for constitutional challenge against a new HIV law in Quintana Roo

Automated translation via Deepl.com – For article in Spanish, please scroll down.

The Mexican Network against the Criminalisation of HIV and the civil association Vida Positiva Playa filed in recent days a request to the Human Rights Commission of the State of Quintana Roo and the National Human Rights Commission to file unconstitutionality actions against the “Law of Prevention, Integral Care and Control for HIV in the State of Quintana Roo”, approved unanimously by the Congress of the State of Quintana Roo, in Mexico, on 24 May this year.

Although the purposes of the law in question include promoting non-discrimination of people living with HIV and strengthening the fulfilment of their human rights, the result has been to the contrary by using false, obsolete, stigmatising and discriminatory language that is not in accordance with the 2015 UNAIDS Terminology Guidelines and articles that directly violate human rights.

The law may also spoil an efficient response to HIV and AIDS by causing confusion by not complying with the principles of taxativity, i.e. it is not precise or clear in its statements, and by contradicting in some articles national laws, norms and guidelines on HIV prevention and detection and medical care for people with HIV, which are mandatory “for all health sector institutions”.

With expressions that mention in several articles such as “contagion of HIV/AIDS” and “people living with HIV/AIDS”, this law reinforces the myths in the general population that HIV and AIDS are the same and that, because it is “contagious” (in reality it is transmissible), one can acquire both HIV and AIDS by simply living with a person living with HIV.

On the other hand, referring to people with HIV as “HIV patients” implies that the individuals in question are seriously ill and have no control over their lives (Mexico’s General Health Law only speaks of “patients” if they are terminally ill and/or hospitalised. Persons who seek medical care without having the characteristics of a patient are called “users”).

A direct violation of the human right to refuse medical treatment and procedures, also enshrined in Mexico’s General Health Law, is found in Article 14 of the new law. According to this article, HIV testing is mandatory for “patients scheduled for surgical interventions and those who are going to undergo invasive diagnostic methods” and “pregnant women, so that the product does not have a vertical transmission of HIV”. On the other hand, Article 61, paragraph 2 violates the right to confidentiality of an HIV diagnosis by obliging people who have “jobs that involve direct contact with medical-surgical instruments or biological material”, i.e. practically all medical personnel, to inform their employer of their HIV status and the employer, according to medical criteria, must “procure a change in the carrier’s working conditions”, which may also allow for the dismissal of this person for living with HIV.

Solicitan demanda de acción de inconstitucionalidad contra una nueva ley de VIH en Quintana Roo

La Red Mexicana contra la Criminalización del VIH y la asociación civil Vida Positiva Playa presentaron en los últimos días una solicitud a la Comisión de los Derechos Humanos del Estado de Quintana Roo y la Comisión Nacional de los Derechos Humanos para que interpongan acciones de inconstitucionalidad contra la “Ley de Prevención, Atención Integral y Control para el VIH del Estado de Quintana Roo”, aprobada de forma unánime por el congreso del estado de Quintana Roo, en México, el 24 de mayo de este año.

Aunque entre los propósitos de la ley en cuestión se encuentran promover la no discriminación de las personas con VIH y fortalecer el cumplimento de sus derechos humanos, el resultado ha sido contrario al usar un lenguaje falso, obsoleto, estigmatizante y discriminatorio que no está conforme a las “Orientaciones Terminológicas de Onusida” de 2015 y artículos que violan directamente derechos humanos.

La ley también puede estropear una respuesta eficiente ante el VIH y el sida por causar confusión al no cumplir con los principios de taxatividad, es decir que no es precisa ni clara en sus declaraciones, y por contradecir en algunos artículos leyes, normas y guías nacionales sobre la prevención y la detección del VIH y atención médica de las personas con VIH, las cuales son obligatorias “para todas las instituciones del sector salud”.

Con expresiones que mencionan en varios artículos como “contagio del VIH/sida” y “personas que viven con VIH/sida” la presente ley fortalece los mitos en la población general que el VIH y el sida son lo mismo y que, por ser “contagioso” (en realidad es transmisible), se puede adquirir tanto el VIH como el sida por la simple convivencia con una persona que vive con el VIH.

Por otro lado, al referirse a las personas con VIH como “pacientes del VIH” dan a entender que los individuos en cuestión están seriamente enfermos y no ejercen control sobre su vida (La Ley General de Salud de México habla únicamente de “pacientes” si son personas que padecen enfermedades terminales y/o que están hospitalizadas. Personas que acuden a la atención médica sin tener las características de un paciente, son llamados “usuarios”).

Una violación directa al derecho humano de rechazar tratamientos y procedimientos médicos, plasmado también en la Ley General de Salud de México, se encuentra en el artículo 14 de la nueva ley. Según este artículo la aplicación de la prueba del VIH es obligatoria para “pacientes programados para intervenciones quirúrgicas y aquellos que vayan a ser sometidos a métodos diagnósticos invasivo” y “mujeres embarazadas, a efecto que el producto no tenga una transmisión vertical del VIH”. Por otra parte, el artículo 61, parágrafo 2 viola el derecho a la confidencialidad de un diagnóstico del VIH al obligar a personas que tienen “puestos laborales que impliquen contacto directo con instrumental médico-quirúrgico o con material biológico”, es decir prácticamente a todo el personal médico, informar a su patrón de su condición serológica y este, según criterio médico, debe “procurar el cambio en las condiciones de trabajo del portador”, lo cual también puede permitir el despido de esta persona por vivir con VIH.

Canada: Ignoring request to wear condom violates consent and constitutes sexual assault

Breaking Agreement to Use a Condom Is a Sex Crime, Canada High Court Rules

The Supreme Court ruling is one of the strictest in a recent spate of measures addressing deceptive condom use, as courts try to define consent.

Canada: Government to seek input on how to modernize the criminal justice system’s response to HIV non-disclosure

Liberals to launch consultations on criminal justice response to HIV non-disclosure

OTTAWA – The Liberal government plans to launch consultations this October on the criminal justice system’s response to HIV non-disclosure.

Justice Minister David Lametti made the commitment as he met interested parties this week in the lead-up to the International AIDS Conference in Montreal on the weekend.

The consultations will seek input on how to modernize the criminal justice system’s response to the non-disclosure of HIV status, in light of growing scientific evidence related to the risk of sexual transmission of HIV, the virus that causes AIDS.

As the law is currently written, people who do not disclose their HIV status before having sex can be prosecuted for aggravated sexual assault, the most serious type of sexual offence in the Criminal Code — even in cases where there is little to no possibility of transmission, no intent to transmit and no actual transmission.

The way the law is enforced is “extremely punitive and overbroad,” said India Annamanthadoo, a policy analyst with the HIV Legal Network, noting advocates are aware of more than 200 cases being prosecuted since 1989.

Annamanthadoo said in an interview that the consultation is a good first step by the federal government, but it is not enough.

“We need to act swiftly and urgently,” she said. “So what we’re hoping is that this consultation is not going to be something that’s protracted, but rather something that leads to swift legislative reform.”

The Canadian Coalition to Reform HIV Criminalization, of which the HIV Legal Network is a part, said in a statement Wednesday that the government must recognize “we are not starting from scratch.”