Australia: Proposed law in Western Australia would forcibly test prisoners for HIV and has no basis in science

HIV experts say McGowan government is ignoring science

Proposed laws to forcibly test prisoners for HIV have no basis in science, perpetuate stigma, and should be referred to a parliamentary committee, according to the West Australian AIDS Council and National Association for People with HIV Australia.

Under laws set to be introduced to the WA Parliament’s Legislative Council on Tuesday, a prisoner who assaults a prison officer will be immediately tested for HIV.

HIV and blood-borne disease experts say the proposed laws overlook critical facts and are not based on science. They highlight that  HIV is not transmitted through saliva, a key myth perpetuated to justify this and similar legislation.

The legislation also fails to acknowledge the very successful treatment options available for people who are concerned they may have been exposed to HIV such as PEP treatment.

The experts say in the unlikely event a prison officer was exposed to HIV, they should take post-exposure prophylaxis, a medicine which can prevent transmission within 72 hours of exposure.

Additionally they say the McGowan government’s media releases on the issue falsely claims prison officers who have been assaulted have to wait three months before they themselves can be tested for HIV. They highlight that modern tests can detect exposure within just six days, rather than the 90 day description put forward by the government.

Corrective Service Minister Fran Logan has publicly stated that prisoner officers currently have to wait three months to get tested.

“Currently prison officers, who have been assaulted by a prisoner, have to wait three months before they themselves are tested to see if they have contracted an infectious disease such as Hepatitis C or HIV.” the Minister said in a media statement in February.

There is also concern that falsely equating HIV with criminality inflames stigma and discourages people from seeking tests for HIV.

The health experts also highlight that the debate in parliament, and reasons given for needing the new legislation make incorrect statements about Hepatitis, ignoring that a vaccine exists for Hepatitis B and there is a cure for Hepatitis C.

WAAC President, Asanka Gunasekera said the Western Australian government was creating legislation that would increase stigma and misinformation.

“HIV thrives on stigma and misinformation. These laws inflame that problem and hinder our prevention efforts. Marginalised communities such as gay and bisexual men, people who inject drugs, and sex workers will be less likely to seek a test for HIV when they see it associated with criminality.

“Part of the case for these laws rests on the discomfort prison officers face when they are spat upon. However, HIV is not transmitted through saliva, destroying one of the key arguments for introducing this legislation.

“The Government has also argued a prison officer may face an anxious three month wait to know if they have contracted HIV. The truth is that modern tests pick up the presence of HIV within six days of exposure. Rapid tests provide highly accurate results within fifteen minutes.” Gunasekera said.

Scott Harlum, the President of the National Association of People with HIV/AIDS (NAPWHA) said the workers the laws were proposed to be protecting were not being told the truth.

“Frontline workers including prison officers need to know they’re being sold a lie and offered nothing but dangerous false reassurance by these proposed laws and any government promoting them.

“There is no mystery in how best to respond to a genuine potential exposure to HIV, such as a needle-stick injury, and that does not include any time wasted or misdirected attention on anybody but the person potentially exposed.” Harlum said.

“In cases where someone faces genuine potential exposure to HIV, such as a needle-stick injury, post-exposure prophylaxis medicine is highly effective at preventing HIV transmission if taken as soon as possible and within 72 hours. Additionally, all front line workers should be protected against hepatitis B through vaccination.

“These laws fail to solve any problem, and only hinder the HIV prevention effort. Likewise, there is no evidence mandatory testing of prisoners will do anything other than further marginalise those living with HIV and other blood borne viruses. Amplifying anxiety and misplaced fear around HIV is simply the wrong thing to do.” Harlum said.

In 2014 the Barnett Liberal government introduced similar laws that relate to police officers. Despite international experts highlighting the laws ignored modern science and would lead to increased stigma the government proceeded with the legislation.

When the laws were introduced then Attorney General Michael Mischin told parliament that it was expected that mandatory testing would only be used on a small number of cases.

However a report released last year by the NAPWHA showed that in just three and half year 387 applications were made to force someone to undertake a test, and only 10 applications were rejected.

Last year Researcher Sally Cameron, one of the authors of the report, told OUTinPerth that the reality is it would be extremely unlikely that a officer could be infected by HIV.

“It’s remarkable that these laws have come in now, when treatments are so good, so many people now have a low undetectable load. The odds of – first of all a policeman coming into contact with someone who has HIV, and then there’s an incident, and that incident could involve the transfer of bodily fluids, and then that that incident could include any risk at all – is already really remote.” Cameron said.

Cameron argued that with the additional option of providing post exposure prophylaxis (PEP) treatment to anyone who has potentially come into contact with HIV, there is almost no possibility of an officer contracting HIV. The last recorded case of a front line worker contracting HIV appears to have occurred in 2002.

It is anticipated that the legislation will be debated in the Legislative Council on Tuesday.

US: Oklahoma passes bill requiring the disclosure of HIV status of the recently deceased

As Epidemic Rages On, Oklahoma Republicans Pass Needlessly Stigmatizing HIV Law

While the number of newly confirmed coronavirus cases in Oklahoma yo-yos between 70 to 100+ each day, the state’s Republican-controlled legislator made it a priority to pass a needlessly stigmatizing law requiring anyone handling human remains to be notified if a recently deceased person is HIV-positive.

Even though the bill is ostensibly meant to reduce possible infections, it’s not exactly clear what made this bill such a priority nearly 40 years after the start of the HIV epidemic. Nevertheless, Republican Oklahoma Governor Kevin Stitt signed House Bill 4041 into law on Thursday and the law will go into effect on November 1, 2020.

 The bill seems all the more redundant, according to Allie Shinn, executive director of the LGBTQ advocacy group Freedom Oklahoma, because, as Shinn explains:
 

“There are already so many guidelines in place for the safety of people who are handling human bodies and human remains. They are adequate safety measures, and they are safety measures that are in place that also treat the body with respect.

What this law would do is not make anybody safer. What it would do is lead to incidents of discrimination and revive tired stereotypes and stigmas that will harm people living with HIV.”

 

Oklahoma has the 31st highest rate of HIV among all U.S. states. It’s also one of 34 U.S. states with laws criminalizing the sexual behavior of HIV positive people to ostensibly prevent deliberate transmission of the virus. However, such laws were drafted during the panic of the 1980s and ’90s HIV epidemic and are predominantly used to harass and target queer men of color.

Spanish Supreme Court sets important HIV criminalisation precedent

The Spanish Supreme Court has set an important precedent for HIV criminalisation cases, making it clear that it is not solely up to the defendant to prove that they disclosed their HIV-positive status, as other factors can inform a court’s judgement about whether or not a complainant knew the accused was HIV-positive. The ruling should also make it more difficult for people to pursue vexatious or ‘revenge’ cases against ex-partners.

As outlined in a (Spanish-language) analysis by Professor Miguel Angel Ramiro Avilés, Legal Clinic Coordinator at the University of Alcalá, this decision is an important step forward in the construction of a rights-based HIV response in Spain, permitting a defence based on the principle of dubio pro reo, and the constitutional guarantee of the presumption of innocence.

However, in his conclusion he notes:

Finally, at no time during the proceedings before the Court was the relationship of causality questioned, and an attempt was made to carry out a phylogenetic analysis; nor was the question of [the defendant’s] viral load raised before the Court. This is a step in a long road ahead.

Spain does not have an HIV-specific criminal law – nor a law requiring HIV disclosure – instead relying on general criminal laws relating to injury to prosecute potential or perceived HIV exposure, or alleged HIV transmission.

However, informed consent (usually obtained by proving prior disclosure of known HIV-positive status by the accused to the complainant) can be a defence, as is the case in most jurisdictions using general criminal laws, and so cases hinge on whether or not a complainant was aware of an accused’s HIV-positive status before sex occurred and consented to the risk of ‘harm’.

The case

The March 2020 Supreme Court decision relates to the case of a woman who began a romantic relationship with the defendant in 2012, living with him for approximately 18 months. She was diagnosed HIV-positive in September 2013. Police were called to their home in June 2014 following an argument. They separated approximately three months later.

Following the separation, the woman complained to the police based on her belief that she had acquired HIV from her ex-partner. The police filed an assault charge using Article 149.1 of the Spanish Penal Code: causing aggravated injury. The charge was based on her assertion that if she had known her partner had been living with HIV, she would not have had condomless sex with him.

After an initial ‘not guilty’ verdict at the Provincial Court of Madrid (due to the complainant’s inconsistent testimony), the case was elevated to the Supreme Court. Like the Provincial Court, the Supreme Court did not consider evidence relating to whether or not the man had actually transmitted HIV to the woman (considering neither viral load nor phylogenetic analysis), accepting the assertion of HIV transmission at face value. Instead, the case hinged on the credibility of the woman’s testimony and associated evidence, as considered through a lens of dubio pro reo, (‘in cases of doubt, then for the accused’; i.e. innocent until proven guilty.)

Evidence

The woman testified that she had specifically asked her ex-partner whether he had HIV and he had denied it, so she did not know he was HIV-positive.

The court, however, was not convinced that she was unaware of his HIV-positive status for a number of reasons. She testified that she had used cocaine and hashish with him, which suggested to the Court that she knew he engaged in ‘high risk’ activities associated with HIV transmission. A former friend testified that ‘the entire neighbourhood knew’ that the accused had HIV, so he could not understand how the woman would not have known. The accused’s sister had also warned the woman to ‘protect herself’ and ‘take measures’: the sister said she was sure that the woman had understood her meaning given the context of their conversation.

Medical evidence showed that during the relationship the defendant had visible lesions on his penis, which worsened during and after sex, which the Court found the woman must have seen and understood to be evidence of a sexually transmitted infection.

Further, the court took a dim view of the fact that she reported her partner only after their separation, making no mention of the issue after her diagnosis or when police attended their home months earlier.

Points of law

The Court considered several points of law, including how to evaluate the available evidence. The judgement outlines that, generally, criminal law is not an appropriate tool where a person understands the risk; has as much control of the risk as the other party; consents to the act causing injury; and is injured as a result. These factors are comparable to a person deciding to have condomless sex with a partner they know has HIV, knowing that doing so can transmit HIV, with HIV transmission resulting.

Consequently, the Court found that instead of needing to focus legal analysis on the ‘presumption of innocence’ in relation to the accused, the appropriate principle to be tested was dubio pro reo, which tests whether ‘a credible doubt arises as to the veracity of the assertion of facts’. This principle means that, if ambiguity is found, the matter should be resolved in favour of the more lenient finding.

Ultimately, the court dismissed the charges of aggravated injury as the court found there was “a reasonable doubt as to the ignorance of the woman about the health status” of her ex-partner. The decision suggests that the woman could have deduced or may have known her partner had HIV.

Acknowledgement: Thank you to Miguel Angel Ramiro Avilés for making his analysis of the court decision so promptly available to HJN.

HIV criminalisation still an issue during COVID-19 pandemic

On 21 February, just prior to the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, we celebrated a week where – for the first time in years – we saw no reported cases of HIV criminalisation anywhere in the world.

Soon after we began to notice fewer reports of HIV criminalisation cases and fewer articles related to our collective advocacy.  We wondered at the time whether this may be due, in part, to our previous advocacy successes, athough we thought it was more likely a reflection of the media and the criminal justice system changing their focus to COVID-19.

Certainly, police have been unbelievably busy dealing with ensuring lockdowns and quarantines are followed – some more zealously than others – and courts, as well as parliaments are either closed or dealing only with the most urgent of cases. This is having a concerning impact upon the processing of HIV criminalisation cases, including appeals, leaving those unjustly accused or convicted in limbo and at greater risk of acquiring COVID-19 whilst on remand or in prison.

Now, after several weeks of seeing no HIV-related criminal cases, this past week we have, unfortunately, documented two further HIV-related arrests – a woman in the Rostov region of Russia is accused of passing on HIV to her husband and faces five years in prison; and a man in Louisiana in the United States was arrested after allegedly spitting on an officer and then charged with “intentional exposure to the AIDS virus” after he informed medical staff of his HIV-positive status.

The US news report notes – without obvious irony – the Kafkaesque nature of the law in Louisiana by concluding:

While saliva alone cannot transmit HIV or AIDS, Louisiana law holds that knowingly infected people who spit at first responders can face up to 11 years in prison and/or pay a $6,000 fine.

 

This week, we also saw a remarkably comprehensive article about HIV criminalisation in Tajikistan, which explored how and why the country’s criminal code potentially considers every HIV-positive citizen to be a criminal, what this means for people living with HIV in the country, and how to avoid prosecution as well as ways to organise.

Finally, some good news relating to HIV criminalisation as well as to COVID-19 criminalisation.

In Spain, the Supreme Court upheld the acquittal of a man accused of criminal HIV transmission noting that evidence pointed to the complainant being aware of his status prior to agreeing to condomless sex, meaning there was consent. 

And in Malta, where it was proposed earlier in the week to add COVID-19 to the list of communicable diseases covered by the law used to criminalise the wilful or negligent spread of HIV and hepatitis, this proposal has since been put on hold, due to very real concerns that this may do more harm than good for public health, as well as create difficulties around proof in court.

The Times of Malta reports:

The law could also strain the already stretched law enforcement resources if they suddenly had to deal with a flood of reports over possible criminal spreading of the virus.

“In essence, this seems like a good idea at first glance but it presents a number of problems,” one government minister privy to the discussions said.

The possibility of such a reform had not even been brought before Cabinet yet, he said, adding he understood it “has been put on the back burner for now”. 

“We have bigger fish to fry, right now.”

 

If only other punitive-minded governments – and overly-zealous law enforcement officers – around the world thought this way about COVID-19 and other communicable diseases right now, including, of course, HIV.

Tajikistan: The Criminal Code potentially considers every HIV-positive citizen to be a criminal

How can we save 14,000 Tajiks from the threat of prison and the country from an epidemic?

The Criminal Code potentially considers every HIV-positive citizen to be a criminal, not a person in need of state support.

Why do criminal measures against Tajiks living with HIV contribute to the rapid growth of the HIV/AIDS epidemic in the country? What is the practice in neighbouring countries? And, most importantly, how citizens can protect their rights, the correspondent of “Asia-Plus” understood.

The approach to the fight against HIV in Tajikistan, when law enforcement agencies, not doctors, take over, can have the opposite effect. This is the view of Tajik and international human rights activists, as well as the UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women.

According to the Ministry of Health, more than 14 thousand people with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) live in the country, almost half of whom do not even know about their HIV-positive status, and their number keeps growing.

On November 9, 2018, the UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDOW) issued recommendations to Tajikistan, noting that there are a number of barriers in access to health care, which lead to the rapid spread of HIV.

Thus, paragraph 40 contains a recommendation to decriminalize HIV – complete abolition of Article 125 of the Criminal Code of Tajikistan. In the same year, in 2018, 33 criminal cases were initiated against 26 HIV-positive people, and in 2019 this number was increased by at least 6 more cases. These data were voiced by the prosecutor of Khujand Habibullo Vohidov at the coordination council of law enforcement agencies, on 2 May last year.

Since the beginning of 2020, human rights activists of the Centre for Human Rights and ReACT have already registered two such cases.

Article 125 is no longer in effect.
According to the Global Network of PLHIV (GNP+) Stigma and Discrimination Program Manager Alexandra Volgina, Article 125 of the Criminal Code of Tajikistan is taken from the Soviet legislation and reflects the reality of those years when there were no drugs for the disease. HIV rapidly progressed into AIDS, which was in fact a death sentence.

The first part of the 125th article of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Tajikistan speaks about infecting another person with venereal disease by a person who knew that he had this disease. This is despite the fact that antiretroviral therapy (ARV – ed.) completely eliminates the risk of transmission of the immunodeficiency virus and makes a person with HIV completely safe in terms of virus transmission.

It is important to note that antiretroviral therapy works only against HIV and does not protect against other sexually transmitted infections. Therefore, it is important not to forget about condom use as well.
“Criminalisation in itself is a stigma that society perpetuates in law or practice against people living with HIV. They are treated as criminals by default,” says Mikhail Golichenko, a lawyer and international human rights analyst for the Canadian Legal Network.

By placing all responsibility for preventing the transmission of immunodeficiency virus to people living with HIV, the article on criminalization of HIV, in fact, gives society false hope, misleads society when people think that “if HIV is criminalized, I will be warned in any case,” said the lawyer.

In Tajikistan, the diagnosis of HIV is perceived as a threat. This is a big problem, which under the current global scientific base is simply pointless.

The principle of ‘Undefined=Untransferable’ (if a person with HIV receives treatment, the virus in his blood is reduced to a minimum and then he cannot transmit HIV to his sexual partner) is a long-proven scientific fact and a turning point in the history of the fight against HIV/AIDS.

Thus, today HIV-positive women, while receiving treatment, give birth to healthy children, people with HIV live as long as without it. Families where partners with different HIV statuses, without transmitting the disease to each other, live happily, and this happens not somewhere far away, but in neighboring countries: Russia, Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan.

Women in a trap
Under article 125 of the Criminal Code, women are mainly recruited in Tajikistan. Human rights expert in the aspect of access to HIV prevention and treatment NGO “Center for Human Rights” Larisa Aleksandrova, says about the stereotype inherent in Tajik society – that HIV infection is mainly caused by sex workers.

In fact, according to the National Programme on Combating HIV Epidemic in 2017-2020, HIV prevalence among sex workers is 3.5%.

Heterosexual sex is the main route of HIV transmission in Tajikistan. In some regions, the proportion of such cases reaches 70%.
Larisa Alexandrova shared real examples of violations of women’s rights from the practice of lawyers of the NGO “Center for Human Rights” Zebo Kasymova and Dilafruz Samadova.

In order to protect personal data, no names are given.

Punishment without a crime
“A 41-year-old resident of Khatlon province was previously convicted under part 2 of article 125 of the Criminal Code and was sentenced to one year in prison in 2018. By court order, she was released early in 9 months due to poor health.

But already in 2019 the woman was repeatedly detained. A criminal case was initiated against her in the same episodes as in 2018. None of the sexual partners in the case were found to be HIV-positive, neither in 2018 nor in 2019. However, the court found the woman guilty again, only under Part 1 of Article 125 of the Criminal Code she was sentenced to 1 year in prison. Under article 71 of the Criminal Code, the court did not impose a suspended sentence, but gave her a probationary period for correction, but under control of her behavior.

Expert opinion: Analysis of this case, according to the lawyer, revealed a low level of professionalism of law enforcement officials, both in terms of knowledge of HIV and in legal proceedings. The reopening of a case on the same episode, on the same facts of a criminal case against a person is a direct violation of the Constitution of Tajikistan and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the expert assures.

– The woman served 9 months for the first time, and under Part 2 of Article 125 of the Criminal Code. Initially, the wrong norm was applied, as Part 2 says about HIV infection. But none of the sexual partners was found to have HIV. Accordingly, there should have been part 1, – sums up Larisa Alexandrova.

A trial without a victim.
“A resident of Khujand, who injected drugs, volunteered for an NGO. A criminal case was initiated on 11 October 2018 under part 1 of article 125 of the Criminal Code. The victims of this case were male. During the trial the man stated that he did not agree with the fact that he was recognized as a victim.

After the initiation of the criminal case on the basis of the commission expert opinion, it was found that the man did not have HIV. At the trial, the lawyer asked questions: “Did the defendant offer to use a condom during sexual intercourse?”, to which the man answered:

“Yes, but I refused. I know that she has this disease, but nevertheless, I love her, I will live with her, I have no complaints or demands to her”.
The legislation of the Republic of Tajikistan refers Article 125 part 1 to the cases of private and public prosecution, which means that these cases are initiated at the request of the victim of the crime, but in case of reconciliation with the accused, the proceedings are not terminated. Despite this, the defendant was sentenced to one year and two months’ deprivation of liberty under article 125, part 1, of the Criminal Code.

Expert opinion: In this case, the person was put in jail despite the fact that she had good medical data. In addition, her sexual partner knew that she had HIV. He did not even submit any application. In that case, the case should have been initiated at least by the prosecutor, not the internal affairs system. And we don’t know who reported this case, either. In this case, the procedure for instituting criminal proceedings and the defendant’s procedural rights were also violated.

The investigator did not even let the attorney or the person under investigation see the indictment. The indictment was presented to the lawyer who defended the woman for the first time at the request of the police. Later the defendant refused to defend him, and she was represented by a lawyer from the NGO “Center for Human Rights”. The lawyer filed a complaint against the investigator with the prosecutor’s office, but the prosecutor’s office found no violations.

The judge did not pay attention to all these violations and passed a sentence, comments the expert Aleksandrova. The case was appealed both to the cassation and supervisory authorities, but the judges considered that there were no violations.

International expert Mikhail Golichenko explained what “knowingly” means from the legal point of view.

Part 1 of Article 125 of the Criminal Code of Tajikistan provides for liability for knowingly putting another person in danger of contracting the human immunodeficiency virus. This article does not provide for such a sign as “infection”. In other words, putting another person in danger of infection is sufficient.

The word “knowingly”, interpreted by lawyer Mikhail Golichenko, means that a person knew in advance about the presence of HIV. Being put in danger, without infection itself, means that the crime is a formal one.

For comparison, the Criminal Code of the Republic of Tajikistan also has actions with the material composition, where the obligatory sign is the public dangerous consequences. For example, murder is a material composition, as for the completed composition it is necessary to have such socially dangerous consequences as the death of a person.

For crimes with formal composition, the only form of guilt can only be direct intent. If a person was aware of public danger of his or her action (inaction) and wanted to commit exactly these actions. If there are signs in the case that, for example, the sexual intercourse without a condom was due to fear of violence by the partner, at the request of the partner. Or for other reasons, which give grounds to conclude that there is no desire to put in danger the infection, it is impossible to prosecute under paragraph 1 of Art. 125 of the Criminal Code. There is no necessary element of the crime – guilt in the form of direct intent.

“No treatment, no punishment”: expert recommendations for Tajikistan
Lawyer Mikhail Golichenko and international human rights expert Aleksandra Volgina are sure that Article 125 is not needed, because intentional HIV transmission is the most likely. In addition, this article is covered by another article of the Criminal Code of Tajikistan – “On causing harm to health”. They are convinced that all parts 1, 2, 3 of Article 125 of the Criminal Code of Tajikistan have long lost their relevance.

In itself, the existence of special responsibility for HIV infection is the stigma attached to people living with HIV as enshrined in the criminal law. And in this sense, Article 125 of the Criminal Code of RT plays a negative role in HIV prevention. In this regard, the best option would be to abolish this norm completely. For rare cases of intentional HIV infection it is possible to apply Article 111 of the Criminal Code of Tajikistan on the liability for intentional harm to health of average gravity.

According to Tatiana Deshko, director of international programs in the Public Health Alliance, in Tajikistan it is necessary to bring medical issues under the control of physicians.

– Let’s look at the results of the “work” of this criminal code article. In Tajikistan, more than one million HIV tests were conducted in 2019, and just over 1,000 new HIV cases were identified – that’s very little. People who have a real risk and HIV infection are simply afraid to be tested. That is not surprising, and it happens everywhere.

“Imagine that you would be isolated for the coronovirus not at home or in a hospital, but in an isolation ward and prison. “Then why would you be tested? Still, medical issues should be dealt with by doctors, not the police – then everything would be in its place and we would become healthier,” says Tatiana Deshko.
Thus, Larisa Aleksandrova said that the telephone hotline of the NGO “Center for Human Rights” also began to be contacted by forensic medical experts on gender reassignment and documents of title for transgender people. Such cooperation began to take shape after trainings for some judges: they begin to refer people living with HIV, who are accused under Article 125 of the Criminal Code, for legal assistance. This suggests that the information and scientifically proven arguments are obvious, as well as the fact that the authorities, receiving more information, are ready to contribute in every way to the reasonable support of human rights.

“The Global Fund confirms its readiness to continue supporting Tajikistan’s efforts in the fight against AIDS in implementing an effective response to HIV based on scientific evidence,” said Alexandrina Iovita, Human Rights Adviser, Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria to Asia Plus.
– The focus of these activities is to prevent new cases, increase ARV coverage and reduce barriers to human rights violations faced by key populations in accessing services. Evidence and recommendations from technical partners such as UNAIDS and UNDP indicate that overly broad criminalization of HIV prevents people from getting tested and starting ARVs and jeopardizes adherence.

We welcome the increasing focus on public health rather than on punitive approaches. It is public health that is based on effective and humane interventions that are essential when comparing resources spent and results obtained.

Where to go for help for people living with HIV?
The Republic has organizations that provide support and advice to people living with HIV in difficult circumstances. These are SPIN-plus and the Network of Women Living with HIV in Tajikistan.

As for legal assistance, in Tajikistan there is a hotline of NGO “Center for Human Rights”, +992933557755.

“In just 4 months (October 2019-January 2020), 60 people (21 men, 36 women and 3 transgender people) contacted the hotline,” said Larisa Alexandrova.
Any person in a difficult situation due to HIV can contact the hotline and receive free legal advice and / or support for representation in courts, state agencies.

Lawyers who have not previously dealt with such cases, recommended international human rights activist Mikhail Golichenko, should consult with experienced lawyers in advance. Special organizations, such as the Center for Human Rights in Tajikistan, can be contacted to explain what to do in different situations.

You can’t try to do something on your own, better involve allies and organize protection. Lawyers must be clear about what evidence they need to gather in order to do so.

UNAIDS states unequivocally that there is no evidence to support the effectiveness of criminal law enforcement for HIV transmission in preventing HIV transmission. Rather, it undermines public health goals and the protection of human rights. UNAIDS commends country initiatives to review such legislation and repeal it.

Как спасти 14 тысяч таджиков от угрозы тюрьмы, а страну – от эпидемии?

УГОЛОВНЫЙ КОДЕКС РТ КАЖДОГО ВИЧ-ПОЗИТИВНОГО ГРАЖДАНИНА ПОТЕНЦИАЛЬНО РАССМАТРИВАЕТ КАК ПРЕСТУПНИКА, А НЕ ЧЕЛОВЕКА, НУЖДАЮЩЕГОСЯ В ПОДДЕРЖКЕ ГОСУДАРСТВА

Почему уголовные меры против таджиков, живущих с ВИЧ, способствуют стремительному росту эпидемии ВИЧ/СПИДа в стране? Какая практика у соседних стран? И, главное, как гражданам защищать свои права, разбирался корреспондент «Азия-Плюс».

Подход в борьбе с ВИЧ в Таджикистане, когда за дело берутся правоохранители, а не врачи, может дать обратный эффект. Так считают таджикские и международные правозащитники, а также комитет ООН по ликвидации дискриминации в отношении женщин.

По информации Минздрава РТ в стране проживает более 14 тыс. людей с вирусом иммунодефицита человека (ВИЧ), почти половина которых, даже не подозревает о своём ВИЧ-положительном статусе, и их число продолжает расти.

9 ноября 2018 года, комитет ООН по ликвидации дискриминации в отношении женщин (CEDOW) опубликовал рекомендации в адрес Таджикистана, отметив наличие ряда барьеров в доступе к здравоохранению, которые приводят к стремительному распространению ВИЧ.

Так, в пункте 40 содержится рекомендация по декриминализации ВИЧ – полной отмене статьи 125 Уголовного кодекса РТ. В том же 2018 году было возбуждено 33 уголовных дела в отношении 26 ВИЧ-позитивных людей, а в 2019 году к этому числу прибавилось еще, как минимум, 6 дел. Эти данные озвучил прокурор Худжанда Хабибулло Вохидов на координационном совете правоохранительных органов, 2 мая прошлого года.

С начала 2020 года правозащитники ОО «Центра по правам человека» и ReACT зарегистрировали уже 2 таких кейса.

125-я статья уже не работает

По словам менеджера программ по стигме и дискриминации Глобальной Сети ЛЖВ (GNP+) Александры Волгиной, 125 статья в Уголовном кодексе Таджикистана взята из советского законодательства и отражает реальность тех лет, когда еще не было лекарств от этого заболевания. ВИЧ быстро прогрессировал в состояние СПИДа, что являлось фактически смертельным приговором.

Первая часть 125-й статьи УК РТ говорит о заражении другого лица венерической болезнью лицом, знавшим о наличии у него этой болезни. Это притом, что антиретровирусная терапия (АРВ, – ред.) полностью устраняет риск передачи вируса иммунодефицита и делает человека с ВИЧ совершенно безопасным в плане передачи вируса.

Важно отметить, что эта АРВ терапия работает только против ВИЧ и не защищает от других инфекций, передающихся половым путем. Поэтому важно не забывать и об использовании презерватива.

«Сама по себе криминализация — клеймо, которое общество закрепляет в законе или в практике против людей, живущих с ВИЧ. Они рассматриваются как преступники, по умолчанию», – говорит Михаил Голиченко, адвокат, международный аналитик по правам человека Канадской правовой сети.

Возлагая всю ответственность за профилактику передачивируса иммунодефицита на людей, живущих с ВИЧ, статья о криминализации ВИЧ, по сути, дает обществу ложную надежду, вводит общество в заблуждение, когда люди думают, что «если ВИЧ криминализовано, то меня в любом случае предупредят», – отмечает адвокат.

В Таджикистане диагноз «ВИЧ» воспринимается как угроза. Это большая проблема, которая при существующей мировой научной базе просто бессмысленна.

Принцип “Неопределяемый=Непередаваемый” (если человек с ВИЧ получает лечение, у него в крови вирус снижается до минимума и тогда он не может передать ВИЧ половому партнеру) – давно доказанный научный факт и переломный момент в истории борьбы с ВИЧ/СПИДом.

Так, сегодня ВИЧ-положительные женщины, принимая лечение, рожают здоровых детей, люди с ВИЧ живут так же долго, как и без него. Семьи, где партнеры с разными ВИЧ статусами, не передавая болезнь друг другу, живут счастливо, и это происходит не где-то далеко, а в соседних странах: России, Кыргызстане, Казахстане и Узбекистане.

Женщины в западне

В Таджикистане по 125-й статье Уголовного кодекса РТ в основном привлекаются женщины. Эксперт по правам человека в аспекте доступа к профилактике и лечению ВИЧ ОО «Центра по правам человека» Лариса Александрова, говорит о стереотипе, присущем таджикскому обществу – о том, что заражают ВИЧ-инфекцией в основном секс-работницы.

На самом деле, по данным Национальной программы по противодействию эпидемии ВИЧ на 2017-2020 гг. распространенность ВИЧ среди секс-работниц – 3,5%.

Гетеросексуальные половые контакты – основной путь передачи ВИЧ в Таджикистане. В ряде регионов доля таких случаев достигает 70%.

Лариса Александрова поделилась реальными примерами нарушения прав женщин из практики адвокатов ОО «Центра по правам человека» Зебо Касымовой и Дилафруз Самадовой.

В целях защиты персональных данных, имена не указываются.

Наказание без преступления

«41-летняя жительница Хатлонской области ранее была судима по ч.2 статьи 125 УК РТ и приговором суда в 2018 году была осуждена на год лишения свободы. Постановлением суда через 9 месяцев освобождена досрочно в связи с плохим состоянием здоровья.

Но уже 2019 году женщина была повторно задержана. В отношении неё было возбуждено уголовное делопо тем же эпизодам, что и в 2018 году. Ни у одного из проходящих по делу половых партнёров не было выявлено ВИЧ, ни в 2018, ни в 2019году. Однако суд повторно признал женщину виновной, только уже по ч.1 статьи 125 УК РТ ей назначали 1 год лишения свободы. Суд на основании статьи 71 УК РТ условно не применил наказание, а дал ей испытательный срок для исправления, но в условиях контроля за её поведением».

Мнение экспертов: Анализ данного кейса, по словам адвоката, выявил низкий уровень профессионализма сотрудников правоохранительных органов, как по знанию особенностей ВИЧ, так и по судопроизводству. Повторное возбуждение делапо одному и тому же эпизоду, по тем же фактам уголовного дела против человека – прямое нарушение Конституции РТ и Международного пакта о гражданских и политических правах, уверяет эксперт.

–  Женщина первый раз отсидела 9 месяцев, причём по части 2 ст.125 УК РТ. Изначально была применена неправильная норма, так как часть 2 говорит о заражении ВИЧ. Но ни у одного из половых партнеров не был обнаружен ВИЧ. Соответственно должна была быть часть 1, — резюмирует Лариса Александрова.

Суд без потерпевшего

«Жительница г. Худжанд, употреблявшая инъекционные наркотики, работала волонтёром в НПО. Уголовное дело было возбуждено 11 октября 2018 года по ч.1. статьи 125 УК РТ. Потерпевшим по этому делу проходил мужчина. В ходе судебного процесса мужчина заявил, что он не согласен с тем, что его признали потерпевшим.

После возбуждения уголовного дела на основании заключения комиссионной экспертизы, было выявлено, что у мужчины отсутствует ВИЧ. На суде были заданы вопросы со стороны адвоката: «Предлагала ли подзащитная использовать презерватив при половом контакте?», на что мужчина ответил:

«Да, но я отказался. Я знаю, что у неё есть это заболевание, но, тем не менее, я люблю её, буду с ней жить, не имею к ней претензии и требований».

Законодательство Республики Таджикистан относит статью 125 часть 1 к делам частно-публичного обвинения, это означает, что эти дела возбуждаются по заявлению лица, пострадавшего от преступления, но в случае примирения его с обвиняемым производство по ним не подлежит прекращению. Несмотря на это, в отношении подсудимой был вынесен приговор – 1 год 2 месяца лишения свободы по ч.1 статьи 125 УК РТ».

Мнение экспертов: В этом случае, человека посадили, несмотря на то, что у неё были хорошие медицинские данные. К тому же о наличии у неё ВИЧ половой партнёр знал. Он даже не подавал никакого заявления. В таком случае дело должно было быть возбуждено, как минимум прокурором, а не системой внутренних дел. И кто сообщил об этом кейсе тоже неизвестно. В данном кейсе был нарушен и порядок возбуждения уголовного, дела и процессуальные права подсудимой женщины.

Следователь даже не дал ознакомиться с обвинительным заключением ни адвокату, ни самой подследственной. Обвинительное заключение было представлено адвокату, которая защищала женщину впервые дни по запросу органов милиции. В впоследствии подсудимаяот его защиты отказалась, и ей был представлен адвокат от ОО «Центр по правам человека». Адвокатом была подана жалоба на следователя в прокуратуру, но прокуратура не нашла никаких нарушений.

Судья не обратил внимания на все эти нарушения и вынес приговор, комментирует эксперт Александрова. Дело было обжаловано и в кассационную, и надзорную инстанции, но и там судьи посчитали, что нарушений нет.

Что значит «заведомо» – с юридической точки зрения объяснил международный эксперт Михаил Голиченко.

Часть 1 ст. 125 УК Таджикистана предусматривает ответственность за заведомоепоставление другого лица в опасность заражения вирусом иммунодефицита человека. В этой статье не предусмотрен такой признак как «заражение». То есть самой постановки в опасность заражения достаточно.

Слово «заведомо», толкует юрист Михаил Голиченко, означает, что человек заранее знал о наличии у него ВИЧ. Поставление в опасность, без наступления самого заражения, означает, что состав преступления формальный.

Для сравнения, в УК РТ также есть действия с материальным составом, где обязательным признаком выступают общественно-опасные последствия. Например, убийство – материальный состав, так как для оконченного состава необходимо наступление такого общественно-опасного последствия, как смерть человека.

Для преступлений с формальным составом единственной формой вины может быть только прямой умысел. Если человек осознавал общественную опасность своего действия (бездействия) и желал совершить именно эти действия. Если в деле есть признаки того, что, например, половой акт без презерватива был по причине страха насилия со стороны партнёра, по просьбе самого партнёра. Либо по другим причинам, которые дают основания для вывода об отсутствии желания поставить в опасность заражения, то привлечь к ответственности по части 1 ст. 125 УК РТ нельзя. Отсутствует необходимый элемент состава преступления – вина в форме прямого умысла.

«Лечить, нельзя наказывать»: рекомендации экспертов для Таджикистана

Адвокат Михаил Голиченко и международный эксперт по правам человека Александра Волгина уверены, что статья 125 не нужна, потому что умышленная передача ВИЧ –редчайшая вероятность. К тому же эта статьяохваченадругой статьей УК Таджикистана – «О причинении вреда здоровью». Они убеждены, все части 1,2,3 ст. 125 УК РТ давно утратили свою актуальность.

Само по себе наличие специальной ответственности за заражение ВИЧ является закрепленной в уголовном законе стигмой по отношению к людям, живущим с ВИЧ. И в этом смысле ст. 125 УК РТ играет негативную роль в вопросах профилактики ВИЧ-инфекции. В этой связи лучшим вариантом была бы отмена данной нормы полностью. Для редких случаев умышленного заражения ВИЧ возможно применении ст. 111 УК РТ об ответственности за умышленное причинение вреда здоровью средней тяжести.

По мнению Татьяны Дешко, директора международных программ в Альянсе общественного здоровья, в Таджикистане необходимо дать медицинские вопросы под контроль медиков.

– Давайте посмотрим на результаты «работы» этой статьи уголовного кодекса. В Таджикистане в 2019 году проведено более миллиона тестов на ВИЧ-инфекцию, а выявлено чуть больше 1 тыс новых случаев ВИЧ – это очень мало. Люди, которые имеют реальный риск и ВИЧ-инфекцию, просто боятся тестироваться. Неудивительно и так происходит везде.

“Представьте, что за короновирус вас бы изолировали не дома или в больнице, а в изоляторе и тюрьме. Пошли бы вы тогда тестироваться? Все-таки медицинскими вопросами должны заниматься врачи, а не полиция, – тогда все станет на свои места и станем здоровее”, – говорит Татьяна Дешко.

Так, Лариса Александрова рассказала, что на телефон горячей линии ОО «Центр по правам человека» начали обращаться также и сотрудники судебно-медицинской экспертизы по поводу изменения пола и правоустанавливающих документов по трансгендерным людям. Такое сотрудничество начало складываться после проведения тренингов для некоторых судей: они начинают перенаправлять людей, живущих с ВИЧ, которые обвиняются по ст.125 УК РТ, за правовой помощью. Это говорит о том, что информирование и научно доказанные аргументы очевидны, а также о том, что представители власти, получая больше информации готовы всячески способствовать разумному сопровождению прав человека. 

«Глобальный фонд подтверждает свою готовность продолжать поддержку деятельности Таджикистана в борьбе со СПИДом в применении эффективных мер ответа на ВИЧ, основанных на научно-доказанных данных, – сказала «Азия-Плюс» Александрина Иовита, советник по правам человека, Глобального фонда для борьбы со СПИДом, туберкулёзом и малярией. 

– Фокус этой деятельности направлен на предотвращение новых случаев, расширение охвата АРВ и снижение барьеров, связанных с нарушением прав человека, с которыми сталкиваются представители ключевых групп в контексте получения доступа к услугам. Фактические данные и рекомендации от технических партнеров, таких, как ЮНЭЙДС и ПРООН, указывают на то, что чрезмерно широкая криминализация ВИЧ не позволяет людям проходить тестирование и начинать АРВ, а также ставит под угрозу приверженность.

Мы приветствуем все больший фокус на общественном здравоохранении, а не на карательных подходах. Именно общественное здравоохранение основано на эффективных и гуманных мерах, представляющих большую значимость при сравнении затраченных ресурсов и полученных результатов».

Куда обратиться за помощью людям, живущим с ВИЧ?

В республике работают организации, которые оказывают поддержку и консультирование людям, живущим с ВИЧ, оказавшимся в сложных жизненных обстоятельствах. Это СПИН-плюс и Сеть женщин, живущих с ВИЧ в Таджикистане.

Что касается правовой помощи, в Таджикистане работает горячая линия ОО «Центра по правам человека», +992933557755

«Только за 4 месяца (октябрь 2019-январь 2020) на горячую линию обратились 60 человек (21 мужчина, 36 женщин и 3 трансгендерных человека)», – говорит Лариса Александрова.

Любой человек, оказавшись в сложной ситуации, в связи с ВИЧ, может обратиться на горячую линию и получить бесплатно правовую консультацию и/или поддержку по представительству в судах, государственных органах.

Адвокаты, которые ранее не занимались подобными делами, рекомендует международный правозащитник Михаил Голиченко, должны заранее проконсультироваться с опытными юристами. Можно обратиться в специальные организации – такие как ОО «Центр по правам человека в Таджикистане», чтобы им могли разъяснить, как быть в разных ситуациях.

Нельзя пытаться что-то делать своими силами, лучше привлечь союзников и организовать защиту. Адвокат должен четко знать, какие доказательства для этого необходимо собрать.

ЮНЭЙДС однозначно заявляет, что нет никаких данных, подтверждающих эффективность применения уголовного законодательства в отношении передачи ВИЧ – для предотвращения передачи ВИЧ. Наоборот, такое применение подрывает цели общественного здравоохранения и защиту прав человека. ЮНЭЙДС высоко оценивает инициативы стран по пересмотру такого законодательства и его отмене.

UNAIDS “extremely concerned” by new COVID-19 laws that target people living with or vulnerable to HIV

This week, echoing the concerns of the HIV JUSTICE WORLDWIDE Steering Committee, amongst others, UNAIDS issued a strongly worded press release condemning governments for abusing the current state of emergency over the COVID-19 pandemic for overreaching their powers and enacting laws that target people who are living with, or vulnerable, to HIV.

“In times of crisis, emergency powers and agility are crucial; however, they cannot come at the cost of the rights of the most vulnerable,” said Winnie Byanyima, Executive Director of UNAIDS. “Checks and balances that are the cornerstone of the rule of law must be exercised in order to prevent misuse of such powers. If not, we may see a reversal of much of the progress made in human rights, the right to health and the AIDS response.”

Notably, UNAIDS singles out EU member states, Hungary and Poland.

In Hungary, a new bill has been introduced to remove the right of people to change their gender and name on official documents in order to ensure conformity with their gender identity, in clear breach of international human rights to legal recognition of gender identity.

In Poland, a fast-tracked amendment to the criminal law that increases the penalties for HIV exposure, non-disclosure and transmission to at least six months in prison and up to eight years in prison has been passed—a clear contravention of international human rights obligations to remove HIV-specific criminal laws.

In addition, UNAIDS condemns overly zealous policing that is especially targeting key populations already stigmatised, marginalised, and criminalised.

UNAIDS is also concerned by reports from a number of countries of police brutality in enforcing measures, using physical violence and harassment and targeting marginalized groups, including sex workers, people who use drugs and people who are homeless. The use of criminal law and violence to enforce movement restrictions is disproportionate and not evidence-informed. Such tactics have been known to be implemented in a discriminatory manner and have a disproportionate effect on the most vulnerable: people who for whatever reason cannot stay at home, do not have a home or need to work for reasons of survival.

They single out Uganda where “23 people connected with a shelter for providing services for the LGBTI community have been arrested—19 have been charged with a negligent act likely to spread infection or disease. Those 19 are being held in prison without access to a court, legal representation or medication.”

They also highlight Kenya as a model of cjvil society rapid response to human rights concerns following the release of an advisory note “calling for a focus on community engagement and what works for prevention and treatment rather than disproportionate and coercive approaches.”

The statement concludes:

While some rights may be limited during an emergency in order to protect public health and safety, such restrictions must be for a legitimate aim—in this case, to contain the COVID-19 pandemic. They must be proportionate to that aim, necessary, non-arbitrary, evidence-informed and lawful. Each order/law or action by law enforcement must also be reviewable by a court of law. Law enforcement powers must likewise be narrowly defined, proportionate and necessary.

UNAIDS urges all countries to ensure that any emergency laws and powers are limited to a reasonable period of time and renewable only through appropriate parliamentary and participatory processes. Strict limits on the use of police powers must be provided, along with independent oversight of police action and remedies through an accountability mechanism. Restrictions on rights relating to non-discrimination on the basis of HIV status, sexual and reproductive health, freedom of speech and gender identity detailed above do not assist with the COVID-19 response and are therefore not for a legitimate purpose. UNAIDS calls on countries to repeal any laws put in place that cannot be said to be for the legitimate aim of responding to or controlling the COVID-19 pandemic.

UNAIDS recently produced a new guidance document that draws on key lessons from the response to the HIV epidemic: Rights in the time of COVID-19: lessons from HIV for an effective, community-led response.   

Poland: Country’s Criminal Code amended to increase sentencing in cases of HIV exposure

New round of HIV criminalization in Poland

New round of HIV criminalization in Poland

This week, Polish President Andrzej Duda signed a law amending the country’s Criminal Code. Its content, coupled with other measures to combat COVID-19, was originally intended to create better conditions for overcoming the crisis. However, despite this, it, without any justification or prior approval, also included a number of provisions regarding the intensification of the criminalization of HIV.

According to the comments of activists familiar with the situation, the following amendments were made to the law of June 6, 1997 – the Polish Criminal Code :

“1) Article 161 is replaced by the following:

Section 161.

§ 1. Any person who knows that he is infected with HIV and exposes another person to the risk of infection shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of 6 months to 8 years.

§ 2. Any person knowing that he suffers from a venereal or [other] contagious disease, a serious chronic disease or a disease that threatens his life, and exposing the other person to the risk of infection, shall be punished by imprisonment of 3 months to 6 years.

§ 3. If the person who committed the act specified in § 2 exposes many people to the risk of infection, he shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of 1 to 10 years.

§ 4. The prosecution of a crime referred to in § 1 or § 2 takes place at the request of the victim. ”

According to experts, the changes made to the Criminal Code have significantly tightened the forms and methods of combating people living with chronic diseases, including HIV infection. Previously , according to them, the same acts were punished:

  • In paragraph 1, by imprisonment for a term of up to 3 years.
  • In subsection 2, a fine, restriction of liberty or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 1 year.
  • The provisions of § 3 have not previously been applied.

Regardless, since 2015, sentences of imprisonment (a fine or restriction of liberty) have been applied to all crimes established by this article of the Criminal Code. Thus, in the case of the offenses referred to in § 1 and § 2, the punishment, in addition to the fine and restriction of liberty, could also entail a real prison term.

It should be noted that according to experts, the criminalization of HIV throughout the world continues to be a serious barrier to the effective fight against infection. By exacerbating stigma and discrimination and counteracting the prevention, testing, treatment and care of people living with HIV, regulations that act as tools for criminalization are most often written or applied based on a false or outdated perception of the virus, and in particular about ways to transmit it.

Criminal or administrative prosecutions most often relate to activities where the risk of HIV transmission is negligible or completely absent, including: vaginal and anal sex, provided that “positive” partner uses uncontrolled contraception or undetectable viral load, oral sex, breastfeeding, bites, scratches spitting.

As of 2019, global monitoring has shown that a total of 75 countries (103 jurisdictions) have HIV-specific laws or determine HIV infection as a disease that is relevant to the law.

As of December 31, 2018, in 29 countries there were cases of applying HIV-specific laws, in 37 countries – general criminal or similar laws to HIV +, and in 6 – the use of both.

In more than three years of observation in 49 countries, at least 913 arrests, prosecutions, appeals and / or acquittals have occurred. The largest number of cases was recorded in Russia (314), Belarus (249) and the USA (158).

An analysis of the manifestations of criminalization shows that prosecution, aggravated by discrimination, most often affects precisely marginalized groups of the population, including drug users, ethnic minorities with a different gender identity or sexual orientation, uncertain immigration status, homeless people, sex -workers and others

Meanwhile, over the past few years, promising changes have taken place in the jurisdictions of many countries, especially those dealing with office work.

So, on January 1, 2019, in six countries of the world, precedent cases were established when the application of the law is limited by the data of modern science. Since 2016, 2 laws on the criminalization of HIV were repealed, 2 more were declared unconstitutional, 7 laws were changed, and at least 4 more bills were recalled.

Last month, it became known that the Legislative Assembly of Washington (USA) approved a bill that transferred to the administrative plane an offense related to the deliberate exposure of a person to the risk of sexual transmission of HIV. The previously mentioned act qualified as criminal and could entail a real criminal punishment.

Новый виток криминализации ВИЧ в Польше

На этой неделе президентом Польши Анджеем Дуда был подписан закон о внесении изменений в Уголовный кодекс страны. Его содержание вкупе с иными мерами по борьбе с COVID-19, изначально было призвано создать лучшие условия для преодоления кризисной ситуации. Однако, несмотря на это, оно без каких-либо оснований и предварительных согласований, также включило в себя ряд положений, касающихся усиления криминализации ВИЧ.

Согласно комментариям активистов, знакомых с ситуацией, в закон от 6 июня 1997 года – Уголовный кодекс Польши – были внесены следующие изменения:

«1) статья 161 заменяется следующей:

Статья 161.

§ 1. Любой человек, зная, что он инфицирован ВИЧ и подвергая другого человека риску инфицирования, подлежит наказанию в виде лишения свободы на срок от 6 месяцев до 8 лет.

§ 2. Любой человек, зная, что он страдает венерическим или [иным] контагиозным заболеванием, серьезным хроническим заболеванием или болезнью, которая угрожает его жизни, и подвергая другого человека риску инфицирования, подлежит наказанию в виде лишения свободы на срок от 3 месяцев до 6 лет.

§ 3. Если лицо, совершившее деяние, указанное в § 2, подвергает многих людей риску инфицирования, оно подлежит наказанию в виде лишения свободы на срок от 1 до 10 лет.

§ 4. Преследование за преступление, указанное в § 1 или § 2, происходит по ходатайству потерпевшего.»

Как отмечают специалисты, внесенные в УК изменения заметно ужесточили формы и методы борьбы с людьми, живущими с хроническими заболеваниями, в том числе ВИЧ-инфекцией. Ранее, по их словам, те же деяния наказывались:

  • В части § 1 – лишением свободы на срок до 3 лет.
  • В части § 2 – штрафом, ограничением свободы или лишением свободы на срок до 1 года.
  • Положения § 3 ранее не применялись.

Независимо от этого, с 2015 года наказания в виде лишения свободы (штрафа или ограничения свободы) применялись ко всем установленным данной статьей УК преступлениям. Таким образом, в случае правонарушений, указанных в § 1 и § 2, наказание, помимо штрафа и ограничения свободы, могло также повлечь за собой и реальноый тюремный срок.

Отметим, что по данным специалистов, криминализация ВИЧ во всем мире продолжает оставаться серьезным барьером для эффективной борьбы с инфекцией. Усугубляя стигму и дискриминацию и противодействуя профилактике, тестированию, лечению и уходу за людьми, живущими с ВИЧ, нормативные акты, которые действуют в качестве инструмента криминализации, чаще всего написаны или применяются на основании ложного или устаревшего представления о вирусе, и, в частности, о способах его передачи.

Уголовное или административное преследование чаще всего касается действий, где риск передачи ВИЧ незначителен или полностью отсутствует, в том числе: вагинальный и анальный секс при условии использования барьерной контрацепции или неопределяемой вирусной нагрузки у «позитивного» партнера, оральный секс, кормление грудью, укусы, царапины, плевки.

По сотоянию на 2019 год глобальный мониторинг показал, что в общей сложности 75 стран мира (103 юрисдикции) имеют ВИЧ-специфические законы или определяют ВИЧ-инфекцию релевантным для права заболеванием.

По состоянию на 31 декабря 2018 года в 29 странах имели место случаи применения ВИЧ-специфических законов, в 37 странах – общих уголовных или подобных им законов к ВИЧ+, и в 6 – использование тех и других.

За более чем три года наблюдений в 49 странах произошло не менее 913 арестов, судебных преследований, апелляций и / или оправдательных приговоров. Наибольшее количество случаев было зарегистрировано в России (314), Беларуси (249) и США (158).

Анализ вариантов проявления криминализации показывает, что судебное преследование, усугубляемое дискриминацией, чаще всего затрагивает именно маргинализированные группы населения, в том числе, лиц, употребляющих наркотики, относящихся к этническим меньшинствам, имеющих иную гендерную идентичность или сексуальную ориентацию, неопределенный иммиграционный статус, бездомных, секс-работниц и др.

Между тем в течение ряда последних лет в юрисдикциях многих стран, особенно касающихся делопроизводства, произошли многообещающие изменения.

Так, на 1 января 2019 года в шести странах мира были установлены прецедентные случаи, когда применение закона ограничивается данными современной науки. С 2016 года 2 закона о криминализации ВИЧ были отменены, еще 2 – признаны неконституционными, 7 законов – изменены, и еще минимум 4 законопроекта – отозваны.

В минувшем месяце стало известно, что законодательное собрание штата Вашингтон (США) одобрило законопроект, который перевел в административную плоскость правонарушение, связанное с умышленным подвержением лица риску половой передачи ВИЧ. Ранее указанное деяние квалифицировалось как преступное и могло повлечь за собой реальное уголовное наказание.

US: Lawmakers fail to pass HIV modernisation bill in Florida

Ending the Epidemic in Florida Must Include Ending HIV Criminalization

“Lawmakers Finally Pass HIV Modernization Bill in Florida to End HIV Epidemic by 2030.”

This should have been the headline at the end of the Florida legislative session in Tallahassee, which concluded on March 12. Instead, Florida lawmakers missed the opportunity to pass common-sense legislation for an easy bipartisan win that could benefit all Floridians. The HIV modernization bills sponsored by state Rep. Nick Duran and Sen. Jason Pizzo would have modernized Florida’s outdated HIV-specific laws written in the early ’80s, which do not reflect the scientific and social reality of HIV today. Florida is both the epicenter of the HIV epidemic in the United States and one of the states that continually sends people to prison for nondisclosure of HIV status. If we’re ever going to end the HIV epidemic in the U.S., we will have to end it in Florida. And we have to end HV criminalization in the state to achieve the goal of ending the epidemic.

The HIV prevention bills in the Florida House and Senate introduced this year were designed to align Florida’s outdated HIV laws with the current science of prevention and treatment. The new law would have required actual HIV transmission in order to convict—but it allows for exceptions “if he or she in good faith complies with a treatment regimen prescribed by his or her health care provider or with the behavioral recommendations of his or her health care provider or public health officials to limit the risk of transmission, or if he or she offers to comply with such behavioral recommendations, but such offer is rejected by the other person with whom he or she is engaging in sexual conduct.” It would also reduce harsh penalties (from a felony to a misdemeanor) for nondisclosure. Lastly, the bill would allow for organ donation between people of shared HIV status, which has been legal at the federal level since 2013.

While the bill did not advance this session, lawmakers did demonstrate resounding support for updating Florida’s law that makes it a felony for someone living with HIV to donate organs, tissue, blood, or plasma to someone else living with HIV. A provision to remove the felony and allow for such donations was added into a bill that unanimously passed the House and a bill that unanimously passed the Senate. Unfortunately, neither bill ultimately made it to the governor’s desk to be signed into law. According to a report by the Williams Institute, an average of 35 people are arrested in Florida every year for HIV-related offenses all across the state, but mainly in Central and North Florida.

The provision doesn’t just benefit people living with HIV by expanding their potential donor pool; when anyone receives an organ, everyone on the organ-donor waiting list benefits by being bumped up a spot. Last year, the national story of Nina Martinez and the first successful transplant of a kidney between two people of shared HIV status gave hope to those people who could benefit from the practice.

“Allowing patients with HIV to donate organs to people living with HIV who need them is just common sense,” said Howard Grossman, M.D., an HIV physician and researcher based in South Florida. “Organ donation already involves extensive screening, testing, and informed-consent protocols. What reason could rational people have to deny lifesaving therapy when it is readily available? Many states have already approved such procedures, with excellent results.”

But the states, including Florida, have more work to do. The Trump administration announced Ending the HIV Epidemic: A Plan for America in February, 2019. The end of HIV was mentioned again in the latest State of the Union address. The plan aims to reduce HIV transmissions by 90% by 2030. It allocates funding to the most impacted areas identified by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, including seven states, two cities, and 48 counties where at least 50% of people living with HIV in the U.S. currently reside, areas that have some of the highest diagnosis rates in the country. Most of those jurisdictions are in the southern states, and seven Florida counties have been identified as focus areas in the initiative (Broward, Duval, Hillsborough, Miami-Dade, Orange, Palm Beach, and Pinellas counties).

Fixing outdated criminalization laws must be part of the calculus when policymakers consider the range of social determinants of HIV. Without reforming laws that unjustly criminalize people based on their HIV status, we cannot end the epidemic. The American Medical Association has opposed HIV criminalization since 2014, when the organization published a statement calling for the modernization of laws as part of a public health response to the epidemic. Current Florida law criminalizes people living with HIV, working against public health policy by keeping people from seeking testing and treatment.

Florida saw broad, bipartisan support for HIV modernization last session, when House and Senate committees passed the HIV modernization bills, even though they ultimately did not pass the full chambers. We hope for broader HIV criminalization reform from the Florida Legislature. Last year, the Florida Infectious Disease Elimination Act (IDEA) was passed, expanding needle-exchange programs throughout the state. This law built on the success of a pilot project implemented by the University of Miami to help reduce HIV and hepatitis C transmissions, spearheaded by HIV advocate and professor Hansel Tookes, M.D., M.P.H.

The Florida HIV Justice Coalition represents just part of the worldwide HIV criminal reform movement, which has the support of major organizations and professional groups like the World Health Organization, American Medical Association, UNAIDS, and the Presidential Advisory Council on HIV/AIDS (PACHA).

There is no hyperbole in the claim that the current HIV modernization legislation will affect the lives of all Floridians. This session’s progress toward modernizing organ donation was an important step in the road to fully modernizing the HIV-specific laws of the state. Modernizing organ donation is long overdue, and its potential to save lives cannot be underestimated. The inclusion of people living with HIV as organ donors can also eliminate some of the undue stigma still prevalent in our state. That stigma underlies all of Florida’s outdated HIV laws.

The time to fully modernize Florida’s outdated HIV laws is now.

US: U.S. Representatives Barbara Lee and Jenniffer González Colón reintroduced bill to modernize discriminatory HIV/AIDS Laws

Congresswomen Lee, González Colón Reintroduce Bill to Decriminalize and Destigmatize HIV/AIDS

Washington, D.C. – Today, Congresswoman Barbara Lee and Congresswoman Jenniffer González Colón, Co-Chairs of the Congressional HIV/AIDS Caucus, reintroduced the Repeal Existing Policies that Encourage and Allow Legal (REPEAL) HIV Discrimination Act, which would modernize laws and policies to eliminate discrimination against those living with HIV/AIDS. Federal and state laws, policies, and regulations should not place a unique or additional burden on individuals solely as a result of their HIV status, and the bill offers a step-by-step plan to work with states to modernize their laws.

“HIV criminalization laws are based on bias, not science. Instead of making our communities healthier, these laws breed fear, discrimination, distrust, and hatred,” said Congresswoman Lee. “Punishments under these laws or statutes include decades-long sentences and sex offender registration, even for behaviors and situations that pose no HIV transmission risk. These dangerous and stigmatizing laws undermine public health and can contribute to worsening the HIV epidemic – and are one of the top 4 reasons why people living with HIV do not seek medical care. 

“Our laws should not perpetuate prejudice against anyone, particularly against those living with diseases like HIV. By introducing this legislation, we are sending a signal that discrimination and stigma have no place in our laws. We must all keep fighting to ensure everyone can live with dignity and respect, and to one day achieve an AIDS-free generation.” 

“An estimated 38,000 people become infected with HIV in the U.S. each year; a tragic statistic that we can help overcome through education and awareness, not through stigma and discrimination,” stated Rep. González Colón. “While modern science and medicine have advanced dramatically improved, some state legislatures are still passing laws that criminalize and penalize people infected with HIV without proof of an actual risk of transmission. That is why I’m joining Congresswoman Lee in introducing the REPEAL Act so that states reform their existing policies to eliminate the harmful consequences of dangerous and stigmatizing state laws that criminalize people living with HIV. As a country, we must come together to advance the dignity of people living with HIV.” 

Today, 34 states and 2 U.S. territories have criminal statutes based on outdated information regarding HIV/AIDS. This legislation would allow federal and state officials and community stakeholders to work together to repeal laws that target people living with HIV/AIDS. If passed, the act will be a key step toward ending unjust HIV criminalization laws in the United States. 

US: Bill to modernise Florida’s HIV criminalisation laws does not not address automatic enhancing of prostitution charges

Florida’s HIV Criminalisation laws target sex workers. A reform bill offers little relief.

67% of people arrested under state laws that criminalize HIV exposure and transmission are sex workers. But new legislation meant to modernize these laws would retain harsh penalties against them.

Florida is one of 26 states that have criminal laws that apply only to people living with HIV. In Florida, having consensual sex, donating blood or organs, or engaging in sex work without disclosing one’s status is a third-degree felony, subject to up to five years in prison and up to a $5,000 fine. The current laws—first enacted during the panic surrounding the HIV epidemic in the late 1980s and expanded in the late 1990s—do not take into account whether protection was used or whether a person’s viral load is undetectable, meaning they aren’t able to transmit the disease.

This session, a bill was introduced to the Florida legislature to modernize these laws. House Bill 427/Senate Bill 626 would have reduced the charges for engaging in consensual sex without HIV status disclosure to a first-degree misdemeanor, currently the penalty for exposure to other sexually transmitted diseases. Under the bill, which was first introduced in 2016, a person would be charged with a first-degree misdemeanor only if the prosecutor could prove they intended to transmit the virus. 

Proponents of the bill—an umbrella of LGBT rights organizations and HIV advocates called the Florida HIV Justice Coalition—say it will bring Florida in line with public health policy on the disease. But critics, among them health policy experts and sex worker rights organizations, say it doesn’t go far enough. The original legislation did not address the statutes that automatically enhance a prostitution charge, typically a second-degree misdemeanor, to a third-degree felony for sex workers living with HIV who don’t disclose their status.

Amir Sadeghi, the outreach coordinator for the Center for HIV Law and Policy, told The Appeal that this is a significant flaw because sex workers represent the majority of people arrested and convicted under current laws. Between the time the laws were passed in 1986 and 2017, 756 people have been arrested under Florida’s HIV- and STD-related criminal statutes, according to a study by the Williams Institute at the UCLA School of Law. The majority of those arrested—506 people—were charged with offenses related to sex work. Black women were almost twice as likely as white women to be convicted of an HIV-related offense. 

“We have an opportunity to fully modernize and reduce penalties and make sure people can only be prosecuted if someone can prove intent,” Sadeghi said. “Unfortunately the bill in Florida, because it stops short of doing that, it also stops short of making a meaningful improvement in the lives of people living with HIV.”

This month, the bill died in the House. A version of the bill is now under consideration in the Senate, but it does not address the criminalization of transmission. The health policy committee, the first to hear the bill this session, would not put it on the agenda unless a co-sponsor, Senator Jason Pizzo, agreed to a strike-all amendment that would make it legal for people living with HIV to donate organs to other people living with HIV who have been informed of their status, Kamaria Laffrey, an organizer with the coalition, told The Appeal. “It’s frustrating,” Laffrey said, “but our goal is always to keep the conversation going,” adding that, “In other states, it’s taken five to nine years for progress.” The coalition plans to reintroduce the full bill next year with the hope it can bypass the Health Policy committee.

Florida has the third-highest rate of HIV in the country. Although few studies have been conducted on the rate of the disease among sex workers in the state, the community is known to be more vulnerable to infection. This is due to the barriers that violence, poor working conditions, and police harassment pose to sex workers trying to obtain health services. “Sex workers want to be healthy, they want to be able to access medication, they want to be able to access healthcare services,” said Alex Andrews, the co-founder of the Sex Workers Outreach Project (SWOP) Behind Bars who is based in Florida. 

Public health advocates also say that criminalizing HIV exposure and transmission discourages people from getting tested, because you can only be charged if you know your status. This is a particular concern for sex workers, who have to balance potential violence from a client if they disclose their status with the likelihood of arrest if they don’t. “One of the phrases you hear in the community is ‘take the test and face arrest,’” said Jada Hicks, a staff attorney for the Center for HIV Law and Policy. “That highlights what the community thinks in terms of knowing your status and being criminalized for it.” 

One arrest for prostitution also puts a sex worker at risk of being charged for transmission or exposure. Under Florida law, anyone convicted of a prostitution offense is automatically tested for HIV and other STDs, and the results are shared with prosecutors. “People who are being prosecuted by this law are from marginalized communities; they don’t have the money for the defense,” Andrews said. “They have to live with the serious impact this is going to have on them.”

While the Florida legislature considers reform of its HIV laws, prosecutors in the state say they nonetheless enforce current laws. The Appeal contacted the 20 state attorneys offices in Florida. Twelve offices responded by publication time. Ten said they prosecute HIV exposure and transmission. “If it’s on the books and we can prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, we’re charging someone,” said Estella Gray, the communications officer for the state attorney’s office in the 13th Judicial Circuit (Tampa). “The idea that we’re not gonna prosecute HIV crimes—that’s unheard of in this circuit.” Howard Rosen, an assistant state attorney in the 11th Circuit (Miami), responded by email that the office would consider prosecution on a “case by case basis” that is “factually driven, also taking into account the position of any victim.” 

The law is not evenly enforced across the state. Hillsborough, Duval, and Pinellas counties account for 53 percent of arrests under current HIV law but only 16 percent of HIV cases throughout the state, according to the Williams Institute study. Miami-Dade and Broward counties represented 42 percent of HIV cases in the state but only 7 percent of HIV-related arrests.

Brad Sears, a scholar at the Williams Institute, said he’s had conversations with prosecutors who say that one of the functions of these laws is to pressure people, especially sex workers, to take a plea deal. Typically, if a sex worker who is HIV-positive is arrested for soliciation, “which usually involves creating a conversation [with police] … there’s not much else that’s needed,” Sears said. “It’s very hard to mount a defense against that.” The higher penalty associated with HIV status then “becomes a lever to get you to plead to one or more of the crimes” you’re charged with, Sears added. 

Other disparities are baked into the law as well. Sex workers who are HIV-positive can be charged with a felony simply for offering to commit a sex act without disclosing their status—meaning neither transmission nor sex occurred. But a person who procures another for prostitution—a client—must be proven to have “engaged in a sexual activity in a manner likely to transmit” HIV under Florida law, a much higher standard. 

Maintaining punitive penalties for sex workers who don’t disclose their status to sexual partners while lowering them for everyone else living with HIV, will further marginalize the community, Sadeghi said. “It will really reinforce the stigma with respect to sex workers as posing a unique danger to society … regarding sex workers as vectors for disease and not as people with dignity.”

In recent years, other states amended their HIV criminalization laws. In 2017, California reformed its laws so that penalties could only be imposed if a person acted with intent to harm another by transmitting the disease. The bill also eliminated the felony enhancement provision for sex workers living with HIV. 

In Florida, members of the HIV Justice Coalition told The Appeal it wasn’t possible to include sex workers in the bill if they wanted it passed by the conservative legislature. “We were told from various spaces that trying to add in a provision to protect sex workers was nonnegotiable, it was a nonstarter,” said Laffrey, an organizer for the coalition. “The bill absolutely would not be heard if it included them.” The bill was sponsored in the House by Nicholas Duran, a representative from Miami, and in the Senate by Pizzo, a former assistant state attorney for the Miami-Dade state attorney’s office. 

But Andrews of SWOP Behind Bars and other advocates say the bill won’t make much progress in without the sex worker community. “It’s disheartening to see people patting themselves on the back about a law that most impacts sex workers and gives them no relief,” Andrews said. 

Florida sex workers say that given the political realities of the state, the most significant progress in addressing the criminalization of HIV happens in communities, not the legislature. SWOP Behind Bars conducts free HIV and hepatitis C tests, distributes condoms, clean syrigines and pre-exposure prophylaxis to sex workers and homeless people in conjunction with local health and LGBT organizations such as the Center Orlando, Comprehensive Health Center, Miracle of Love, Ladies Intervention Project for Success, and the Orlando and Tampa Bay chapters of SWOP. Andrews estimates that they conduct three to 30 HIV tests a week. “In the year we’ve been doing it, we’ve had not one new case of HIV present itself in outreach,” she said.

“This year is basically the 1984 of the LGBT rights movement for sex workers,” Andrews added. LGBT people “were fighting just to stay alive, and that’s kind of where we are now. We need allies, we need people to support our work, and we need people to support our choice.”