Chile: While Chilean parliament considers HIV criminalisation bill, newspaper takes a closer look at the arguments

Penalisation of HIV / AIDS transmission: The countries that condemn and the consequences using the law to criminalise HIV (Google translate, for original article in Spanish, scroll down)

The explosive increase of cases of HIV AIDS in Chile between 2007 and 2017 led the Ministry of Health to activate alarms, implementing a multiministerial action plan that seeks to curb the situation.

According to the figures, in a decade 5,816 people would have been infected in Chile.

The situation has also led to the presentation of a series of proposals in Parliament such as the PPD-PRO bench that seeks to establish compulsory sex education in secondary education.

However, one of the most controversial has to do with penalizing transmission, as stated out by the bill introduced by UDI deputies Juan Antonio Coloma and Sergio Gahona.

The measure seeks to apply a minimum to medium prison sentence to those who “knowingly carry the HIV virus and who is in the period can effectively transmit, transmit or endanger life or health through sexual relations to another person without their knowledge or consent. “

IS IT PENALISED IN THE REST OF THE WORLD? 

Onusida figures state that by 2016, a total of 36.7 million people were living with HIV, while 20.9 million were receiving antiretroviral treatment. Meanwhile, in that same year, 1.8 million people were infected worldwide.

Intentional transmission is the only case in which the Joint United Nations Program on HIV / AIDS (UNAIDS) considers it pertinent to apply criminal legislation to people who transmit HIV infection or expose others to the virus.

The agency’s report, which dates from 2007, states that “in other cases, legislators, prosecutors and judges should reject the application of criminal law.”

In addition, it urges States to avoid legislation specifically on HIV, but to apply general criminal law in cases of intentional transmission. In addition, it calls for a clear definition of “intentional transmission,” and to ensure that “the application of general legislation to the transmission of HIV is consistent with its international obligations in the area of Human Rights.

AND IN CASE OF VIOLATION? 

In the case of rape resulting in HIV infection, UNAIDS argues that the sentence could take into account “the aggressor’s serostatus as a legitimate aggravating circumstance only if the person knew that she was HIV-positive at the time of committing the crime”.

WHAT MEASURES ARE PROPOSED INSTEAD OF PENALIZING TRANSMISSION? 

UNAIDS argues that there are more effective measures that penalize contagion, such as strengthening and enforcing laws against rape – inside and outside of marriage – and other forms of violence against women and children; improve the effectiveness of the criminal justice system to investigate and prosecute crimes against women and children; support the equality and economic independence of women.

INTENTIONALITY OF TRANSMISSION? 

The report argues that there are few cases of intentional transmission of HIV, contrary to what the UDI parliamentarians propose, where they state in the bill that “there are many cases in which a person, out of simple amusement or revenge, decides to infect the virus. AIDS to other people and thereby generate immeasurable harm to people and their families, beyond their personal responsibilities. “

From the perspective of the international organisation, “this type of malicious acts are rare in the context of HIV and the available data show that most people living with HIV and knowing their HIV status take the necessary measures to prevent transmission of the virus to the others “.

They also argue that people who do not have access to voluntary counselling and testing, or because they fear to be tested because of the negative consequences that may result from a positive diagnosis, such as discrimination or violence, in such cases, people can transmit HIV without knowing their HIV status and should not face criminal proceedings. “

DIFFICULTY IN FINDING WHO TRANSMITTED TO WHO 

“It is often difficult to establish who transmitted HIV to whom (especially when both parties have had more than one sexual partner) and may depend on only one testimony, so people accused of HIV transmission may be found guilty of error, “says Onusida.

COUNTRIES WHERE THERE IS PENALISATION 

There is a large number of countries where the transmission of HIV is criminalized, including the United States, Uganda, Spain, Mexico, except San Luis Potosi and Aguascalientes, in all the penal codes of the states is stipulated the crime of danger of contagion.

A ranking of countries where there is criminaliSation of the disease dating from 2008, puts first Malta, then Bermuda and New Zealand.

In dozens of countries, various organizations have tried to stop the criminalization of HIV / AIDS, especially considering that this goes against the fight for the disease, because people fear to make their contagion visible or examined. (http://www.24horas.cl)

Published in Por El Ojo De La Cerradura on May 26, 2018

———————————————————–

¿Penalizar el contagio del VIH/SIDA?: Los países que condenan y las consecuencias de poner la enfermedad bajo la ley

El aumento explosivo de casos de VIH sida en Chile entre 2007 y 2017 llevó al Ministerio de Salud a activar las alarmas, implementando un plan de acción multiministerial que busca poner freno a la situación.

Según las cifras, en una década 5.816 personas se habrían contagiado en Chile.

La situación también ha derivado en la presentación de una serie de propuestas en el Parlamento como la de la bancada PPD-PRO que busca que establezca la educación sexual obligatoria en la enseñanza media.

Sin embargo, uno de los que más ha causado controversia dice relación con penalizar el contagio, tal como señala el proyecto de ley ingresado por los diputados UDI Juan Antonio Coloma y Sergio Gahona.

La medida busca que se aplique una condena de presidio menor en grado mínimo a medio a quienes “a sabiendas de ser portador del virus del VIH y que se encuentra en el período que puede efectivamente transmitirlo, contagiare o pusiere en peligro la vida o salud mediante relaciones sexuales a otra persona sin contar con su conocimiento o anuencia”.

¿ES PENALIZADO EN EL RESTO DEL MUNDO?

Las cifras de Onusida sostienen que al 2016, un total de 36,7 millones de personas viven con VIH, mientras que 20,9 millones se encuentran con tratamiento antirretrovírico. En tanto, en ese mismo año, 1,8 millones de personas se contagiaron a nivel mundial.

La transmisión intencionada es el único caso en que el Programa Conjunto de las Naciones Unidas sobre el VIH Sida (Onusida) considera pertinente aplicar la legislación penal a personas que transmiten la infección por VIH o exponen a otros al virus.

El informe del organismo, que data de 2007, sostiene que “en otros casos, legisladores, fiscales y jueces deberían rechazar la aplicación de derecho penal”.

Además, insta a los Estados a evitar legislar específicamente sobre el VIH, sino que aplicar el derecho penal general en casos de transmisión intencionada. Además, llama a definir claramente la “transmisión intencionada”, y asegurar que “la aplicación de la legislación general a la transmisión del VIH sea coherente con sus obligaciones internacionales en materia de Derechos Humanos.

¿Y EN CASO DE VIOLACIÓN?

En caso de violación con resultado de contagio de VIH, Onusida sostiene que la sentencia pueda tener en cuenta “el estado serológico del agresor como legítimo agravante sólo si la persona sabía que era VIH-Positiva al momento de cometer el delito”.

¿QUÉ MEDIDAS SE PROPONEN EN LUGAR DE PENALIZAR EL CONTAGIO?

Onusida sostiene que existen medidas más efectivas que penalizar el contagio, como fortalecer y hacer cumplir las leyes contra la violación -dentro y fuera del matrimonio- y otras formas de violencia contra las mujeres y niños; mejorar la eficacia del sistema penal para indagar y procesar delitos contra mujeres y niños; apoyar la igualdad e independencia económica de las mujeres.

 

¿INTENCIONALIDAD EN EL CONTAGIO?

El informe sostiene que son escasos los casos de transmisión intencionada de VIH, contrariando lo que proponen los parlamentarios UDI, donde señalan en el proyecto de ley que “no son pocos los casos en que una persona por simple diversión o venganza decide contagiar del virus del SIDA a otras personas y con ello generar un daño inconmensurable a personas y sus familias, más allá de sus responsabilidades personales”.

Desde la mirada del organismo internacional, “este tipo de actos dolosos son raros en el contexto del VIH y los datos disponibles demuestran que la mayor parte de las personas que viven con el VIH y conocen su estado serológico toman las medidas necesarias para prevenir la transmisión del virus a las demás”.

También sostienen que las personas que no tienen acceso a asesoramiento y pruebas voluntarias, “o porque temen someterse a la prueba debido a las consecuencias negativas que puedan derivarse de un diagnóstico positivo, tales como discriminación o violencia, en tales casos, las personas transmiten sin saber el VIH y no deben enfrentarse a un proceso penal”.

DIFICULTAD EN ENCONTRAR A LA PERSONA TRANSMISORA

“A menudo es difícil establecer quién transmite el VIH a quién (especialmente cuando ambas partes han tenido más de una pareja sexual) y tal vez dependa sólo de un testimonio. Por lo tanto, las personas acusadas de transmisión del VIH pueden se declaradas culpables por error”, sostiene Onusida.

PAÍSES DONDE EXISTE PENALIZACIÓN

Existe una gran cantidad de países donde la transmisión del VIH está penalizada, entre los que se encuentra  Estados Unidos, Uganda, España, México, salvo San Luis Potosí y Aguascalientes, en todos los códigos penales de los estados está estipulado el delito de peligro de contagio.

Un ranking de los países donde existe criminalización de la enfermedad que data de 2008, pone en primer lugar a Malta, luego Bermuda y Nueva Zelanda.

En decenas de países, diversas organizaciones han intentado detener la criminalización del VIH/SIDA, especialmente por considerar que esto atenta contra la lucha para la enfermedad, debido a que las personas temen visibilizar su contagio o examinarse. (http://www.24horas.cl)

 

 

[Update] Mexico: Activists Ask State congress to abide by Supreme Court ruling on HIV criminalisation statute

Veracruz government asked not to criminalise people with HIV (Google translate for original article in Spanish please scroll down)

August 3, 2018

The Multisectoral Group on HIV / AIDS and STIs of the State of Veracruz which asked the National Commission for Human Rights, the right to unconstitutionality, today demands the State Congress to comply with the decision of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation that declared unconstitutional article 158 of the criminal code of the state of Veracruz that criminalizes people with HIV.

On April 30 of this year, with eight votes in favor, the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation determined the invalidity of the amendment to Article 158 of the Criminal Code of the State of Veracruz made on December 1, 2015. This amendment adds to the article referring to the “crime of danger of contagion” the term “sexually transmitted infections” so that those who have them could be sanctioned “for putting in danger of infection other people”.

The sentence of the SCJN said:

  1. The present constitutional challenge promoted by the National Commission of Human Rights is appropriate and well founded.
  2. The invalidity of article 158 is declared in the normative portion “sexually transmitted infections or other” of the penal code for the free and sovereign State of Veracruz of Ignacio de la Llave, which will be retroactive in terms of what is specified in the last section of this enforcement, on the understanding that said effects will be supplied as a reason for the notification of the operative paragraphs of this ruling to the Congress of the State of Veracruz by Ignacio de la Llave.
  3. Publish this resolution in the Official Gazette of the Federation, in the Gaceta del Estado de Veracruz, and the Judicial Weekly of the Federation and its Gazette.

On May 24 of this year, the president of the Board of Directors of the state of Veracruz, Deputy Maria Elisa Manterola Sainz, said in interviews conducted in Xalapa, Veracruz by the News AVC News and Format Sie7e, that the deputies were not obliged to abide by the resolution of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation (SCJN) that declared unconstitutional the reform of the Penal Code in the state that typifies the crime of “contagion by people with HIV”.

In these interviews, the deputy Manterola Sainz said “that once the SCJN notifies the Congress, the deputies should analyze in commissions whether or not to take into account the considerations of the Supreme Court, since they are not obliged to subject themselves to what they say “ “As a Legislative Power, we have to demonstrate autonomy first, and demonstrate what the Veracruzans demand of us (…) It has to be analyzed, there will have to be a response from us and the commissions in charge will present the proposal.”

Faced with this, at the time we stated that the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation is the highest Constitutional Court of the country, under which, it has as its fundamental responsibility the defense of the order established by the Political Constitution of the United Mexican States , in addition to solving, definitively other jurisdictional issues of great importance to society.

As stated by the Master in Constitutional Law and Human Rights Cuauhtémoc “the SCJN is the highest stabilizing body of public power, through its intervention in the resolution of constitutional disputes whose competence is exclusively attributed to Article 105 of the Constitution and , that its action in these matters is not in its character of ordinary jurisdictional organ of the Federation, but in its character of Constitutional Court above the own federal, state or municipal order, and therefore, its action rises above these three levels to be constituted and to function as supreme organ (that is to say as organ of the “global State”) in charge of determining the competence of the parties that come before it to solve their differences.

The Court is not in a simple jurisdictional body responsible for ensuring legality and justice, but a real body guarding the superlegality of the Constitution, that is, a body charged with preserving and validating the fundamental decisions that constitute the Mexican State “.

The ruling of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation already declared the impugned rule invalid even with retroactive effects, for which reason the Congress of the State freely, but responsibly, in use of its legislative powers, must correct it.

The ordinary session of the Congress of Veracruz concluded without addressing the decision of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation that declared unconstitutional article 158 of the criminal code of the state of Veracruz that criminalizes people with HIV.

For this reason, the Multisectoral Group on HIV / AIDS and STIs of the State of Veracruz, who requested the National Commission for Human Rights, the right to unconstitutionality, today demands that the State Congress comply with the Supreme Court’s ruling of Justice of the Nation.

And beyond that, to strengthen their competencies in the area of HIV, AIDS and STIs for the harmonization of legislation that favour pro-human and progressive principles of human rights, which are essential to consolidate the guarantee of protection of the dignity of the people.

 

Published in Almomento on August 3, 2018

Piden al gobierno de Veracruz no criminalizar a personas con VIH

CIUDAD DE MÉXICO, 3 de agosto (AlmomentoMX).- El Grupo Multisectorial en VIH/sida e ITS del Estado de Veracruz solicitó a la Comisión Nacional de los Derechos Humanos, el derecho a la inconstitucionalidad, hoy reclama al Congreso del Estado que cumpla con el fallo de la Suprema Corte de Justicia la de la Nación que declaró  inconstitucional el artículo 158 del código penal  del estado de Veracruz que criminaliza a las personas con VIH.

El pasado 30 de abril del presente año, con ocho votos a favor, la Suprema Corte de Justicia de la Nación determinó la invalidez de la modificación al artículo 158 del Código Penal del Estado de Veracruz realizada el 1 de diciembre de 2015. Dicha modificación adiciona al artículo referente al “delito de peligro de contagio” el término “infecciones de transmisión sexual” a fin de que quienes las tuvieran pudieran ser sancionados “por poner en peligro de infectar a otras personas”.

La sentencia de la SCJN dijo:

  1. Es procedente y fundada la presente acción de inconstitucionalidad promovida por la Comisión Nacional de los Derechos Humanos.
  2. Se declara la invalidez del artículo 158 en la porción normativa “infecciones de transmisión sexual u otras” del código penal para el Estado libre y soberano de Veracruz de Ignacio de la Llave, la cual será retroactiva en términos de lo precisado en el último apartado de esta ejecutoria, en la inteligencia que dicho efectos se surtirán como motivo de la notificación de los puntos resolutivos de este fallo al Congreso del Estado de Veracruz de Ignacio de la Llave.
  3. Publíquese esta resolución en el Diario Oficial de la Federación, en la Gaceta del Estado de Veracruz y, el Semanario Judicial de la Federación y su Gaceta.

El 24 de mayo del presente año, la presidenta de la Mesa Directiva del Congreso del estado de Veracruz, Diputada María Elisa Manterola Sáinz, aseguró en entrevistas realizadas -en Xalapa, Veracruz por los Diarios AVC Noticias y Formato sie7e-, que las y los diputados no están obligados a acatar la resolución de la Suprema Corte de Justicia de la Nación (SCJN) que declaró inconstitucional la reforma al Código Penal en el estado que tipifica el delito de “contagio para las personas con VIH”.

En dichas entrevistas, la diputada Manterola Sáinz afirmó “que una vez que la SCJN notifique al Congreso, los diputados deberán analizar en comisiones si toman en cuenta o no las consideraciones de la Suprema Corte, puesto que no están obligados a sujetarse a lo que digan”. “Como Poder Legislativo tenemos que demostrar primeramente la autonomía, y demostrar lo que los veracruzanos nos exigen (…) Se tiene que analizar, tendrá que haber una respuesta de nuestra parte y las comisiones encargadas presentarán la propuesta.”

Frente a ello, en su momento manifestamos que la a Suprema Corte de Justicia de la Nación es el Máximo Tribunal Constitucional del país, en virtud de lo cual, tiene como responsabilidad fundamental la defensa del orden establecido por la Constitución Política de los Estados Unidos Mexicanos, además de solucionar, de manera definitiva otros asuntos jurisdiccionales de gran importancia para la sociedad.

Tal y como lo afirma el Maestro en Derecho Constitucional y Derechos Humanos Cuauhtémoc  “la SCJN es el máximo órgano estabilizador del poder público, a través de su intervención en la resolución de las controversias constitucionales cuya competencia le atribuye de manera exclusiva el artículo 105 Constitucional y, que su actuación en estos asuntos no es en su carácter de órgano jurisdiccional ordinario de la Federación, sino en su carácter de Tribunal Constitucional por encima del propio orden federal, estatal o municipal, y por tanto, su actuación se eleva por encima de estos tres niveles para constituirse y funcionar como órgano supremo (es decir como órgano del “Estado global”) encargado de determinar la competencia de las partes que acuden ante ella para solucionar sus diferencias.

La Corte no en un simple órgano jurisdiccional encargado de velar por la legalidad y la justicia, sino en un auténtico órgano guardián de la superlegalidad de la Constitución, es decir, en un órgano encargado de preservar y dar valida las decisiones fundamentales que constituyen al Estado Mexicano”.

La sentencia de la Suprema Corte de la Justicia de la Nación ya declaró la invalidez de la norma impugnada incluso con efectos retroactivos, por lo que el Congreso del Estado de manera libre, pero responsablemente, en uso de sus atribuciones legislativas deberá corregirla.

El periodo  ordinario  de sesiones del Congreso de Veracruz concluyó sin atender el fallo de la Suprema Corte de la Justicia de la Nación que declaró  inconstitucional  el artículo 158 del código penal  del estado de Veracruz que criminaliza a las personas con VIH.

Por ello, el Grupo Multisectorial en VIH/sida e ITS del Estado de Veracruz que fue quien solicitó a la Comisión Nacional de los Derechos Humanos, el derecho a la inconstitucionalidad, hoy reclama al Congreso del Estado que cumpla con el fallo de la Suprema Corte de Justicia la de la Nación.

Y más allá de eso, que fortalezcan sus competencias en materia del VIH, el sida y las ITS  para la armonización de la legislación que favorezcan los principios pro persona y de progresividad de los derechos humanos, los cuales son indispensables para consolidar la garantía de protección de la dignidad de las personas.

————————————————————————

 

Local Congress will modify statute that criminalizes people with HIV

 
Monday, May 28, 2018

After the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation determined this unconstitutional issue, the Chamber of Deputies must abide by it.

 After the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation (SCJN) determined it was unconstitutional to criminalize people living with HIV-AIDS, the Congress of Veracruz will amend the law, because being a failure of the SCJN is forced to comply, said deputy Gregorio Murillo Uscanga, president of the Commission for Human Rights and Care for Vulnerable Groups.

On December 1, 2015, Article 158 of the Veracruz Criminal Code was amended, including the “crime of transmission risks” in “sexually transmitted infections” which allows those who could “put themselves at risks of infecting others”.

The Mexican Network of Organizations against the Criminalization of HIV, which is composed of 44 civil society organizations, demanded that the local Chamber of Deputies strengthen their competencies in this area, as well as in other Sexually Transmitted Infections ITS to favor the principles of people and the progressivity of Human Rights.

Faced with the determination of the SCJN, the local congress must make the appropriate adjustments to address the ruling.

Published in e-consulta on May 28, 2018

——————————————————————

Congreso local modificará artículo que criminaliza a personas con VIH

E-consulta Veracruz  |
Lunes, Mayo 28, 2018

Luego de que la Suprema Corte de Justicia de la Nación determinara este tema inconstitucional, cámara de diputados debe acatarlo

Xalapa, Ver. – Luego de que la Suprema Corte de Justicia de la Nación (SCJN) determinara inconstitucional criminalizar a las personas que viven con VIH-Sida, el congreso de Veracruz modificará la ley, pues al ser un fallo de la SCJN se está obligado a acatarlo, señaló el diputado Gregorio Murillo Uscanga, presidente de la Comisión de Derechos Humanos y Atención a Grupos Vulnerables.

El primero de diciembre de 2015, se reformó el artículo 158 del Código Penal de Veracruz, donde se incluyó el “delito de peligro de contagio” en “infecciones de transmisión sexual” el cual permite sancionar a quienes pudieran “poner en peligro de infectar a otras personas”.

La Red Mexicana de Organizaciones contra la Criminalización del VIH, la cual está integrada por 44 organizaciones de la sociedad civil, exigió a la cámara de diputados local fortalecer sus competencias en esta materia, así como en otras Infecciones de Transmisión Sexual ITS para favorecer a los principios de las personas y la progresividad de los Derechos Humanos.

Ante la determinación de la SCJN, el congreso local deberá realizar las adecuaciones correspondientes para atender el fallo. 

——————————————————————————————-

NGO urges local congress to abide by SCJN’s ruling on HIV (Google translation, for original article in Spanish, scroll down)

 

Xalapa, Ver.- The Mexican Network of Organizations against the Criminalization of HIV, through its coordinator Patricia Ponce Jiménez, called on the Local Congress and its president, María Elisa Manterola Sáinz, to abide by the Nation Supreme Court’s ruling regarding the declaration of unconstitutionality of the stature that criminalizes people living with HIV.

 

Through a communiqué issued this Friday, the Network recalled that on April 30 the SCJN ruled in favour of the appeal presented by the National Human Rights Commission (CNDH), at the request of the HIV Multisectoral Group, which was presented two years after the reform that the Congress approved to the Penal Code.

 

Article 158 of the Penal Code provided for a prison sentence and a fine for the person who “transmitted” the human immunodeficiency virus and other sexually transmitted infections considered serious diseases. The SCJN determined that this statute was lax, as well as unconstitutional.

 

For this reason, they reiterated the call for Congress to comply with the decision of the SCJN, since it is a jurisdictional body that is above any legislative power of the States.

 

In the statement, they said that the decision of the SCJN is unappealable and absolute, so the network insisted that it must be complied with immediately.

 

Published in La Opinion de Poza Rica on May 26, 2018

 

ONG exhorta al congreso local a acata fallo de SCJN en materia de VIH

 

Xalapa, Ver.- La Red Mexicana de Organizaciones contra la Criminalización del VIH, a través de su coordinadora Patricia Ponce Jiménez, hicieron un llamado al Congreso Local y a su presidenta, María Elisa Manterola Sáinz, para acatar el fallo de la Suprema Corte de Justicia de la Nación (SCJN) respecto de la declaración de inconstitucionalidad del artículo que criminaliza a las personas que viven con vih.

A través de un comunicado emitido este viernes, la Red recordó que apenas el pasado 30 de abril la SCJN falló a favor del recurso presentado por la Comisión Nacional de Derechos Humanos (CNDH), a petición del Grupo Multisectorial VIH, el cual se presentó hace dos años tras la reforma que el Congreso aprobó al Código Penal. 

El artículo 158 del Código Penal contemplaba pena de cárcel y multa a la persona que contagiara; el virus de inmunodeficiencia humana y otras infecciones de transmisión sexual contempladas como enfermedades graves. La SCJN determinó que este artículo era laxo, así como inconstitucional.

Por ello reiteraron el llamado a que el Congreso acate el fallo de la SCJN, pues se trata un órgano jurisdiccional que está por encima de cualquier poder legislativo de los Estados.

En el comunicado señaló que el fallo de la SCJN es inapelable y absoluto, por lo que insistió la red en que debe ser acatado de manera inmediata.

————————————————————————————————–

Congress discusses the decision of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation to invalidate the criminalisation of HIV transmission (Google translation – For Spanish article, scroll down)

Xalapa, Ver.- The president of the Board of Directors of the local Congress, María Elisa Manterola Sáinz, assured that the deputies are not obliged to abide by the resolution of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation (SCJN) that declared unconstitutional the reform of the Code Criminal in the state that typifies the crime of “contagion” to HIV carriers.

In an interview, he said that once the SCJN notifies the Congress, the deputies should analyze in commissions if they take into account or not the considerations of the Supreme Court, as he said that they are not obliged to subject themselves to what they say.

“As a Legislative Power we must first demonstrate autonomy, and demonstrate what the Veracruzans demand of us (…) It has to be analyzed, there will have to be a response from us and the commissions in charge will present the proposal.”

In the same way, she spoke about the need to reform the Law to comply with the National Commission to Prevent Violence against Women (Conavim) in order to guarantee women access to the legal interruption of pregnancy (ILE).

Published in XEU.com on May 18,2018

Congreso analiza determinación de la SCJN negativa de tipificar como delito el contagio de VIH
 

Xalapa, Ver.- La presidenta de la Mesa Directiva del Congreso local, María Elisa Manterola Sáinz, aseguró que los diputados no están obligados a acatar la resolución de la Suprema Corte de Justicia de la Nación (SCJN) que declaró inconstitucional la reforma al Código Penal en el estado que tipifica el delito de “contagio” a los portadores de VIH.

En entrevista, dijo que una vez que la SCJN notifique al Congreso, los diputados deberán analizar en comisiones si toman en cuenta o no las consideraciones de la Suprema Corte, pues dijo que no están obligados a sujetarse a lo que digan.

“Como Poder Legislativo tenemos que demostrar primeramente la autonomía, y demostrar lo que los veracruzanos nos exigen (…) Se tiene que analizar, tendrá que haber una respuesta de nuestra parte y las comisiones encargadas presentarán la propuesta”.

De la misma forma, se pronunció en torno a la exigencia de reformar la Ley para acatar la Comisión Nacional para Prevenir la Violencia contra las Mujeres (Conavim) a fin de garantizar a las mujeres el acceso a la interrupción legal del embarazo (ILE).

—————————————————————

The Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation invalidates statute that punishes the transmission of sexually transmitted infections

Xalapa, Ver.- (AVC / Brisa Gómez) The Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation (SCJN) declared the invalidity of Article 158 of the Criminal Code of the State of Veracruz, which punishes those who knowingly “infect” sexually transmitted infections and other serious diseases.

With eight votes in favour of the bill presented before the plenary of the Supreme Court on Monday, it was pointed out that the notion of criminality was “highly inaccurate” because it did not establish what represents a serious illness and furthermore it was not possible to verify the intent of transmission.

With this, it reforms the statute which in Veracruz punishes the “transmission” of sexually transmitted infections and serious diseases with up to five years in prison, ordering the notification of this ruling to the Local Congress.

This is the first legislation criminalising people living with HIV that is thrown down by the highest judicial body in the country.

Published in AVC Noticias on April 30, 2018

——————————————————————

Veracruz: the state with the most prosecutions for the criminalisation of HIV

At least 15 people have been charged and tried on charges of transmitting HIV or a sexually transmitted infection.

Mexico City.- At the national level, Veracruz is the State with the highest number of cases of patients with sexually transmitted infections (STIs) and HIV being tried for being accused of the crime of transmission to other people, due to the criminalization embodied in the criminal codes of the States of the Republic.

Of the 26 cases registered in the country, in which judicial proceedings or sanctioning of persons carrying a sexually transmitted infection, including HIV, have been initiated, 15 were in Veracruz.

During the International Meeting “HIV is not a crime”, it was noted that it was worrying that States, entities and their organs of justice persecute patients of these diseases.

The author of this research, Leonardo Bastida Aguilar, a member of the organization Letter S, said that in the case of Veracruz, despite being known, through a response to a request for transparency, he was only informed about 15 cases of people already charged, for the crime of transmission of venereal diseases.

Requests for answers to questions such as disaggregation by gender, judicial district, year in which it was processed or the type of sexually transmitted infection in question or gender preference or identity were not answered.

He acknowledged that this information was given briefly in 2016 when Veracruz was placed first at the national level in terms of sanctioning proceedings against people with this type of ailments.

These 15 cases, were already concluded and resulted in administrative sanctions, however, there was no further information.

It is necessary to remember that in 2015 a reform was made to the Veracruz Criminal Code, where a person who infects another person with a sexually transmitted infection, including human immunodeficiency virus, is punished with imprisonment.

In other States, a case was recorded in Nuevo León by a patient with HIV and hepatitis; in Chihuahua a person prosecuted for HIV, hepatitis and syphilis; and in Baja California a case was sanctioned with 10 years in jail, with one of the most severe penalties.

This initiative in Veracruz, has been in the hands of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation (SCJN), for a constitutional challenge filed by civil society and the National Human Rights Commission, for approximately two years.

In support of the groups that came out in Veracruz against this proposal that criminalizes HIV patients and other STIs, at the national level, organizations that work on behalf of patients with HIV sent a letter to the Supreme Court to argue against the legislation in Veracruz.

Published in E-Consulta Veracruz on Oct 12, 2017

———————————————————————————————-

Veracruz: el estado con más procesados por delito de contagio de VIH

Al menos 15 personas han sido procesadas y sometidas a juicio al ser acusados de transmitir VIH o infecciones de transmisión sexual.

Ciudad de México.- A nivel nacional, Veracruz es la entidad con más casos de pacientes con infecciones de transmisión sexual (its) y VIH sometidos a juicio al ser acusados del delito de contagio a otras personas, esto debido a la criminalización plasmada en los códigos penales de los Estados de la República.

De 26 casos registrados en el país, en los que se han iniciado procesos judiciales o sancionadores de personas portadoras de alguna infección de transmisión sexual, incluyendo VIH, 15 fueron en Veracruz.

Durante el Encuentro Internacional “VIH no es un crimen”, se advirtió que es preocupante que estados, entidades y sus órganos de justicia persigan a pacientes de estas enfermedades.

El autor de esta investigación, Leonardo Bastida Aguilar, integrante de la organización Letra S, dijo que en el caso de Veracruz, a pesar de darse a conocer, mediante una respuesta a solicitud de transparencia, sólo le informaron que se habían atendido 15 casos de personas ya procesadas, por el delito de contagio o transmisión de enfermedades venéreas.

A esta solicitud no se respondió a cuestionamientos como el desagregado por género, distrito judicial, año en que se procesó o el tipo de infección de transmisión sexual de que se trataba o la preferencia o identidad de género.

Reconoció que esta información se dio de manera escueta en el año 2016 con lo que Veracruz se colocó en el primer lugar a nivel nacional en cuanto a procesos sancionadores a personas con este tipo de padecimientos.

Estos 15 casos, incluso, ya fueron concluidos y dieron como resultado sanciones administrativas, sin embargo no hubo más información.

Es necesario recordar que en 2015 se llevó a cabo una reforma al Código Penal de Veracruz, donde se sanciona con cárcel a quien contagie a otra persona de alguna infección de transmisión sexual, incluyendo el virus de inmunodeficiencia humana.

En otras entidades se registraron un caso en Nuevo León, por un paciente de VIH y hepatitis; Chihuahua una persona procesada por VIH, hepatitis y sífilis; y en Baja California un caso sancionado con 10 años de cárcel, con una de las penas más severas.

Esta iniciativa vigente en Veracruz, se encuentra en manos de la Suprema Corte de Justicia de la Nación (SCJN), por el recurso de inconstitucionalidad que se presentó por parte de la sociedad civil y la Comisión Nacional de Derechos Humanos, desde hace aproximadamente dos años.

En apoyo a los grupos que se pronunciaron en Veracruz contra esta propuesta que criminaliza a pacientes de VIH y otras ITS, a nivel nacional organizaciones que trabajan a favor de pacientes con VIH, enviaron una carta a la Suprema Corte para argumentar en contra de la legislación veracruzana.

US: Michigan proposed bills aim to modernise state laws surrounding HIV

How new bills could change Michigan’s HIV laws

Kathleen Gray  Detroit Free Press Lansing Bureau
Published 10:00 p.m. UTC May 24, 2018

LANSING — Since the first case of HIV/AIDS was reported in Michigan in 1981, lawmakers say treatment for the disease has progressed so much that it’s time to revisit state laws surrounding HIV.

They have introduced a controversial package of bills that would, among other things, make it a misdemeanor, rather than a felony, to not disclose the disease to a sexual partner.

The bills would also update the language in the laws — many written in the ’80s — to reflect advances in treatments and technology. For example, a medication listed in current law is no longer used. And with data storage technology improvements, reporting on HIV can be done within 24 hours, rather than the seven days called for in the current state law.

“These bills represent a way to reduce the stigma of HIV and treat it like any other infectious disease,” Dr. Eden Wells, Michigan’s chief medical officer, said during a hearing before the House Health Policy committee Wednesday. “We should be treating people like patients, not criminals.”

Another controversial provision would require pregnant women in high risk populations to take an HIV test in their third trimester, although a patient would have the ability to opt out of the test.

 

“The basis of the law as it was written (in the 1980s) was in reaction to a lot of the hysteria and panic around the diagnosis,” Wells said, noting that with proper treatment, the disease shows undetectable viral loads “and then they won’t transmit the HIV.”

State Rep. Jon Hoadley, D-Kalamazoo, is the sponsor of the bill that would make non-disclosure of the disease a misdemeanor rather than a felony. As the bill is written now, some people don’t get tested because they don’t want to know the diagnosis and then can’t be held liable if there is a transmittal of the disease.

“We need to modernize the law so there’s no reason not to get tested and treated,” he said.

But state Rep. Ed Canfield, R-Sebawaing, said while he supported the bulk of the bills in the package, he was concerned about reducing the penalties for non-disclosure.

“If they’re allowed to make this a misdemeanor and a $1,000 fine, that’s what the offender gets out of it,” he said. “But if they pass the infection on to someone, it’s a lifetime condition that’s not curable.”

Canfield, who is a medical doctor, said he’s treated patients with AIDS and worries that current treatments that  have greatly extended life expectancies aren’t foolproof.

“What if the anti-virals become ineffective? What happens if we have a crisis that occurs or a businessman buys the patent for the drugs and drives up the cost?” he said. “We could see people dying again. This is a public health problem, not a social problem. And I don’t want to see other people getting harmed or injured.”

The instances of HIV in Michigan have been steadily going down since the number of new cases hit a high of 1,533 in 1992, according to the state Department of Health and Human Services. The number of deaths peaked at 981 in 1995. In 2016, 748 new cases of HIV were reported in the state, 140 deaths and 15,625 people living with the disease.

Wells said that 22 people have been charged with failing to disclose their disease to sexual partners and of those, 19 were charged not because they had actually transmitted the disease, but because they had merely failed to disclose their condition. She didn’t have statistics on the outcome of criminal cases.

The bills — HB 6016-6023 — didn’t get a vote Wednesday, but are expected to be taken up again before the House breaks for the summer in mid-June.

Contact Kathleen Gray: 313-223-4430, kgray99@freepress.com or on Twitter @michpoligal

Published in Detroit Free Press on May 24, 2018

Zimbabwe: Parliamentarian calls for repeal of HIV criminalisation law

Spreading HIV to your own partner is a crime but this must be reviewed, the Parliamentary Portfolio Committee on Health and Child Care has said.

The committee has called for the repeal of the deliberate transmission of HIV law as it violates the rights of women who have mostly borne the brunt of the statute.

 Speaking after the second hearing of the Public Health Bill in Parliament yesterday, committee chairperson Dr Ruth Labode said Zimbabwe has no diagnostic equipment to determine the time a person transmits the virus.

She said the same law was discouraging people from disclosing their HIV status to their partners.

“I stand here to support and to lay my support to the recommendation by the Committee that criminalisation of wilful transmission of HIV be repealed. Zimbabwe is a signatory to the political declaration of the high level meeting in New York which says, we should end HIV by 2030 and that no one should be left behind,” said Dr Labode.

“We all know very well that in Zimbabwe and the world-over, we do not have diagnostic equipment which can tell us who gave HIV to the other and at what time.”

She said more Zimbabwean women had been arrested compared to other countries as a result of the law.

“There is an assumption that whoever has manifested the disease first is the one who transmitted the virus. It can be anybody and it could be the other way round,” said Dr Labode.

She said for Zimbabwe to meet the global HIV targets, everyone must have access to services and be protected by law.

“If you are a woman and suddenly you find yourself positive, you will not tell your partner because of this law yet if the law was not there you would tell your partner and go and access ARVs to live happily ever after.”

Zimbabwe is targeting that 90 percent of people living with HIV know their status of whom 90 percent are on treatment and 90 percent are virally suppressed by 2030. — state media

Published in ZimEye on May 19, 2018

 

International meeting of legal experts starts work on principles to address the misuse and abuse of criminal laws

Addressing the detrimental health and human rights impacts of criminal laws

People have a fundamental human right to make decisions about their lives and bodies. These rights relate to personal choices on, among other things, health care and treatment. For sexual and reproductive rights, key issues include the right of people to decide when, whether and with whom to have sex, to have children and to get married and their ability to express their gender and sexuality.

Leading legal experts from around the world recently met to lay the foundations for a set of principles to address the misuse and abuse of criminal laws that affect basic human rights and impact on health and equality. The principles will be developed in the coming months and will guide civil society and policy-makers in the development and use of laws that guarantee human rights and protect public health.

Tim Martineau, UNAIDS Deputy Executive Director, Programme, a.i., noted at the outset of the meeting that, “While there is significant progress in HIV prevention, treatment and care, there is a big discrepancy in HIV prevention in relation to key populations, who are more vulnerable to HIV infection in many respects because of a lack of legal protection and the unjust criminalization of their behaviour.”

The legal experts focused on criminalization related to sexuality, reproduction, personal drug use and the overly broad criminalization of HIV non-disclosure, exposure and transmission. Around the world, same-sex sexual practices are criminalized in 73 countries, with 13 states imposing the death penalty. Sex work is criminalized in approximatively 116 countries globally and some 72 countries criminalize HIV non-disclosure, exposure or transmission. Criminal laws often increase stigma against already marginalized and excluded groups and have been linked to discrimination and the denial of critical health services. Criminalization also creates an environment in which people are less likely to seek police assistance when their rights have been violated.

Kate Gilmore, the United Nations Deputy High Commissioner for Human Rights, emphasized that the criminal law plays an essential role in the recognition, protection and enforcement of rights, including by tackling impunity for violations of those rights. “Our purpose here is to raise the shield of criminal law by lowering its sword, ensuring better protection through criminal law by reducing the abuse of it.”

Sam Zarifi, the Secretary General of the International Commission of Jurists, said, “The misuse of the criminal law affects the most marginalized people and, in particular, the dispossessed and disenfranchised.”

The meeting was held on 3 and 4 May and was led by the International Commission of Jurists, in partnership with UNAIDS and the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights.

Published on UNAIDS site on May 8, 2018

Mexico: Supreme Court finds Veracruz law criminalising ‘wilful transmission’ of HIV and STIs to be unconstitutional

Following a Constitutional challenge initiated in February 2016 by the Multisectoral Group on HIV / AIDS and STIs of Veracruz and the National Commission on Human Rights, and supported by HIV JUSTICE WORLDWIDE, Mexico’s Supreme Court of Justice yesterday found by eight votes (out of 11) that the amendment to Article 158 of the Penal Code of the State of Veracruz to be invalid as it violates a number of fundamental rights: equality before the law; personal freedom; and non-discrimination.

The full ruling is not yet available, but according to a news story published yesterday in 24 Horas.

…it was pointed out that the criminal offense is “highly inaccurate” because it does not establish what or what is a serious illness, besides it is not possible to verify the fraud in the transmission [and] that although the measure pursued the legitimate aim of protecting the right to health, especially for women and girls, the measure did not exceed the analysis of need because it was not ideal and optimal for the protection of that purpose, especially as [Veracruz] already criminalised the ‘willful putting at risk of contagion of serious illnesses’…

Additionally, Letra S reports,

The Minister President of the Court, Luis María Aguilar Morales, took up the recommendations of the Joint United Nations Program on HIV / AIDS and the Oslo Declaration on HIV Criminalisation, regarding the criminalization of HIV, and argued that this article left to the will of the investigating authority to decide which diseases will be considered as serious and which will not, going against the principle of legality, which implies that the crimes cannot be indeterminate or ambiguous.

In this case, the President said, the article did not establish whether STIs are only those considered serious or any, regardless of their severity. In turn, the justices determined that the resolution has a retroactive effect, that is, that those persons tried under the offense established by this article, the resolutions are invalidated.

 

Background

On August 4, 2015, the Congress of the State of Veracruz approved an amendment to Article 158 of the Criminal Code in order to add the term Sexually Transmitted Infections, which included HIV and HPV. 

It provided for a penalty ranging from 6 months to 5 years in prison and a fine of up to 50 days of salary for anyone who “willfully” infects another person with a disease via sexual transmission.

The amendment, proposed by the deputy Mónica Robles Barajas of the Green Ecologist Party of Mexico, said the legislation was aimed at protecting women who can be infected by their husbands. “It’s hard for a woman to tell her husband to use a condom,” she said in an interview with the Spanish-language online news site Animal Político.

On February 16, 2016, the National Human Rights Commission responded to the request of the Multisectoral Group on HIV / AIDS and STIs of the state of Veracruz and other civil society organizations, and filed an action of unconstitutionality against the reform in the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation, which it said does not fulfill its objective of preventing the transmission of sexual infections to women and girls, but rather creates discrimination of people living with HIV and other STIs.

In October 2016, following a press conference at the National Commission on Human Rights (pictured above) that generated a great deal of media coverage, including a TV report, HIV JUSTICE WORLDWIDE delivered a letter to the Mexican Supreme Court highlighting that a law such as that of Veracruz does not protect women against HIV but rather increases their risk and places women living with HIV, especially those in positions vulnerable and abusive relationships, at disproportionate risk of both proseuction and violence.

In October 2017, the first Spanish-language ‘HIV Is Not A Crime’ meeting took place in Mexico City, supported by the HIV JUSTICE WORLDWIDE coalition where a new Mexican Network against HIV Criminalisation was established.

The Network issued a Statement yesterday which concluded:

We applaud the declaration of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation, which gives us the reason for the unconstitutionality request, shared with the National Commission of Human Rights; For this reason, we suggest to the deputies of the Congresses of the State that before legislating, they should be trained in the subject and that they do not forget that their obligation is to defend Human Rights, not to violate them.

Finally, the Mexican Network against the Criminalization of HIV recognizes that there are still many ways to go and many battles to fight, but we can not stop celebrating this important achievement.

 

Edwin Bernard (HIV JUSTICE WORLDWIDE) and Patricia Ponce (Grupo Multisectorial Veracruz) presenting the letter to Supreme Court of the Nation, Mexico City.
Edwin Bernard (HIV JUSTICE WORLDWIDE) and Patricia Ponce (Grupo Multisectorial Veracruz) presenting the letter to Supreme Court of the Nation, Mexico City.

Read the English text of the HIV JUSTICE WORLWIDE amicus letter below.

HIV JUSTICE WORLDWIDE

This is a letter of support from HIV JUSTICE WORLDWIDE[1] to Grupo Multi VIH de Veracruz / National Commission of Human Rightswho are challenging Article 158 of Penal Code of the Free and Independent State of Veracruz that criminalises ‘intentional’ exposure to sexually transmitted infections or other serious diseases, on the grounds that this law violates a number of fundamental rights: equality before the law; personal freedom; and non-discrimination.

As a coalition of organisations working to end the overly broad use of criminal laws against people living with HIV, we respectfully share Grupo Multi VIH de Veracruz’s concerns around Article 158 which potentially stigmatises people with sexually transmitted diseases and criminalises ‘intentional’ exposure to sexually transmitted infections (potentially including HIV) or other serious diseases.

All legal and policy responses to HIV (and other STIs) should be based on the best available evidence, the objectives of HIV prevention, care, treatment and support, and respect for human rights. There is no evidence that criminalising HIV ‘exposure’ has HIV prevention benefits. However, there are serious concerns that the trend towards criminalisation is causing considerable harm.

Numerous human rights and public health concerns associated with the criminalisation of HIV non-disclosure and/or potential or perceived exposure and/or transmission have led the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/ AIDS (UNAIDS) and the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), [2] the UN Special Rapporteur on the right to health,[3]  the Global Commission on HIV and the Law[4]  and the the World Health Organization[5],  to urge governments to limit the use of the criminal law to extremely rare cases of intentional transmission of HIV (i.e., where a person knows his or her HIV-positive status, acts with the intention to transmit HIV, and does in fact transmit it). They have also recommended that prosecutions [for intentional transmission] “be pursued with care and require a high standard of evidence and proof.” [6]

In 2013, UNAIDS produced a comprehensive Guidance Note to assist lawmakers understand critical legal, scientific and medical issues relating to the use of the law in this way.[7] In particular, UNAIDS guidance stipulates that:

  • “[I]ntent to transmit HIV cannot be presumed or solely derived from knowledge of positive HIV status and/or non-disclosure of that status.
  • Intent to transmit HIV cannot be presumed or solely derived from engaging in unprotected sex, having a baby without taking steps to prevent mother-to-child transmission of HIV, or by sharing drug injection equipment.
  • Proof of intent to transmit HIV in the context of HIV non-disclosure, exposure or transmission should at least involve (i) knowledge of positive HIV status, (ii) deliberate action that poses a significant risk of transmission, and (iii) proof that the action is done for the purpose of infecting someone else.
  • Active deception regarding positive HIV-status can be considered an element in establishing intent to transmit HIV, but it should not be dispositive on the issue. The context and circumstances in which the alleged deception occurred—including the mental state of the person living with HIV and the reasons for the alleged deception— should be taken into consideration when determining whether intent to transmit HIV has been proven to the required criminal law standard.”

Moreover, where criminal liability is extended to cases that do not involve actual transmission of HIV (contrary to the position urged by UNAIDS and other experts), such liability should, at the very bare minimum, be limited to acts involving a “significant risk” of HIV transmission. In particular, UNAIDS guidance contains explicit recommendations against prosecutions in cases where a condom was used, where other forms of safer sex were practiced (including oral sex and non-penetrative sex), or where the person living with HIV was on effective HIV treatment or had a low viral load. Being under treatment or using other forms of protections not only show an absence of malicious intent but also dramatically reduces the risks of transmission to a level close to zero. Indeed, a person under effective antiretroviral therapy poses –  at most – a negligible risk of transmission[8] and is therefore no different from someone who is HIV-negative.

Moreover, there is growing body of evidence[9] that such laws that actually or effective criminalise HIV non-disclosure, potential or perceived exposure, or transmission, negatively impact the human rights of people living with HIV due to:

  • selective and/or arbitrary investigations/prosecutions that has a disproportionate impact on racial and sexual minorities, and on women.
  • confusion and fear over obligations under the law;
  • the use of threats of allegations triggering prosecution as a means of abuse or retaliation against a current or former partner;
  • improper and insensitive police investigations that can result in inappropriate disclosure, leading to high levels of distress and in some instances, to loss of employment and housing, social ostracism, deportation (and hence also possibly loss of access to adequate medical care in some instances) for migrants living with HIV in some cases;
  • limited access to justice, including as a result of inadequately informed and competent legal representation;
  • sentencing and penalties that are often vastly disproportionate to any potential or realised harm, including lengthy terms of imprisonment, lifetime or years-long designation as a sex offender (with all the negative consequences for employment, housing, social stigma, etc.);
  • stigmatising media reporting, including names, addresses and photographs of people with HIV, including those not yet found guilty of any crime but merely subject to allegations.

In addition, there is no evidence that criminalising HIV (or other sexually transmitted infections) help protect women and girls from infections.  

Women are often the first in a relationship to know their HIV status due to routine HIV testing during pregnancy, and are less likely to be able to safely disclose their HIV-positive status to their partner as a result of inequality in power relations, economic dependency, and high levels of gender-based violence within relationships.[10]

Such a law does nothing to protect women from the coercion or violence that effectively increases the risk of HIV transmission. On the contrary, such laws place women living with HIV, especially those in vulnerable positions and abusive relationships, at increased risks of both prosecution and violence.

Some evidence suggests that fear of prosecution may deter people, especially those from communities highly vulnerable to acquiring HIV, from getting tested and knowing their status, because many laws only apply for those who are aware of their positive HIV status. [11] HIV criminalisation can also deter access to care and treatment, undermining counselling and the relationship between people living with HIV and healthcare professionals because medical records can be used as evidence in court. [12]

Finally, there is evidence[13] of an additional negative public health impact of such laws in terms of:

  • increasing HIV-related stigma, which has an adverse effect on a person’s willingness to learn about, or discuss, HIV; and
  • undermining the importance of personal knowledge and responsibility (correlative to degree of sexual autonomy) as a key component of an HIV prevention package, when instead prevention of HIV within a consensual sexual relationship is – and should be perceived as – a shared responsibility.

We hope that the Mexico Supreme Court of Justice takes our concerns and all of this evidence into account when considering the Constitutional Challenge.

Yours faithfully,

Edwin J Bernard, Global Co-ordinator, HIV Justice Network

on behalf of all HIV JUSTICE WORLDWIDE partners: AIDS and Rights Alliance for Southern Africa (ARASA); Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network; Global Network of People Living with HIV (GNP+); HIV Justice Network; International Community of Women Living with HIV (ICW); Positive Women’s Network – USA (PWN-USA); and Sero Project (SERO).

[1] HIV JUSTICE WORLDWIDE is an initiative made up of global, regional, and national civil society organisations working together to end overly broad HIV criminalisation. The founding partners are: AIDS and Rights Alliance for Southern Africa (ARASA); Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network; Global Network of People Living with HIV (GNP+); HIV Justice Network; International Community of Women Living with HIV (ICW); Positive Women’s Network – USA (PWN-USA); and Sero Project (SERO).  The initiative is also supported by Amnesty International, the International HIV/AIDS Alliance, UNAIDS and UNDP.

[2] UNAIDS. Policy Brief: Criminalisation of HIV Transmission, August 2008; UNAIDS. Ending overly-broad criminalisation of HIV non-disclosure, exposure and transmission: Critical scientific, medical and legal considerations, May 2013.

[3] Anand Grover. Report of the Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, June 2010.

[4] Global Commission on HIV and the Law. HIV and the Law: Risks, Rights & Health, July 2012.

[5] WHO. Sexual health, human rights and the law. June 2015.

[6] Global Commission on HIV and the Law. HIV and the Law: Risks, Rights & Health, July 2012.

[7] UNAIDS. Ending overly-broad criminalisation of HIV non-disclosure, exposure and transmission: Critical scientific, medical and legal considerations, May 2013.

[8] A.J. Rodger et al., “Sexual activity without condoms and risk of HIV transmission in serodifferent couples when the HIV-positive partner is using suppressive antiretroviral therapy,” JAMA 316, 2 (12 July 2016): pp. 171–181.

[9]op cit. Global Commission on HIV and the Law.

[10] Athena Network. 10 Reasons Why Criminalization of HIV Exposure or Transmission Harms Women. 2009.

[11] O’Byrne P et al. HIV criminal prosecutions and public health: an examination of the empirical research. Med Humanities 2013;39:85-90 doi:10.1136/medhum-2013-010366

[12]Ibid.

[13]Op cit. Global Commission on HIV and the Law.

Canada: Richard Eliott, executive director of the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network , urges federal and provincial Attorneys-General to follow recommendations of Justice Ministry report

You didn’t transmit HIV. You had no intent to transmit. And indeed you didn’t do anything with your sexual partner that posed a statistically significant risk of transmission. In fact, you might even have used a condom, in keeping with standard safer-sex advice.

And yet, if you’re living with HIV and someone with whom you’ve had consensual sex — even just once — accuses you of not disclosing your status, you could face prosecution for “aggravated sexual assault.” A conviction means years in prison and mandatory registration as a sex offender.

Such a misuse of the law further stigmatizes people living with HIV. And, as a recent study confirms, it also discourages people from seeking HIV testing and getting care and treatment, making it bad public health policy.

This is why community organizations, scientific experts, human-rights lawyers and people living with HIV have been resisting overly broad HIV criminalization for years.

And it’s why this past World AIDS Day (Dec. 1, 2017) was a milestone.

More than 150 groups across Canada released a “Community Consensus Statement” demanding federal, provincial and territorial governments take steps to end unjust HIV criminalization.

In a welcome response, the Hon. Jody Wilson-Raybould, federal Attorney-General and Justice Minister, released her department’s in-depth study into the matter. Reflecting an extensive review of scientific evidence, legal decisions and broader public-interest considerations, the federal justice department now recognizes the harms of the “over-criminalization of HIV” and recommends significant limitations on the use of criminal charges.

More specifically, Justice Canada concludes that criminal-law charges for alleged HIV non-disclosure to a sexual partner shouldn’t be applied in any case where a person has a “suppressed viral load,” because there is effectively zero chance of transmitting the virus.  

Furthermore, the report concludes that criminal charges should generally not apply to persons living with HIV who use condoms or who engage only in oral sex, because the legal test of a “realistic possibility” of transmission is likely not met in such circumstances.

These conclusions are broadly consistent with what community advocates and scientific experts have been urging for years. Now federal and provincial Attorneys-General need to act.

Wilson-Raybould’s office has been signalling her intention to send new directives to federal Crown prosecutors. It’s essential that she consult, as promised, with scientific experts, community organizations and people living with HIV. And, at a minimum, her directives should clearly rule out prosecutions in the situations described in her own department’s report.

In Ontario, the Attorney-General has directed prosecutors to stop prosecutions for alleged HIV non-disclosure in cases where a person with HIV has had a suppressed viral load for at least six months. It’s a welcome development, but far from enough; it continues to leave people living with HIV unjustly criminalized.

But B.C., a province that has so often shown leadership, from harm reduction to HIV treatment, is lagging behind even Ontario’s half-hearted action.

Just last month, with zero consultation with the HIV community, the B.C. Prosecution Service released an updated policy that leaves the door wide open to a wide array of unjust prosecutions at odds with the available science, with human rights and with good public health practice. In four pages of bafflegab, there isn’t a single instance in which they actually rule out prosecuting someone living with HIV.

Disturbingly, even in the scenario described at the outset of this column, the new B.C. policy instructs prosecutors to “consider whether the public interest nonetheless requires a prosecution.” This is an embarrassing and disingenuous exercise that continues to stigmatize people living with HIV. B.C. can and must do better.

In the meantime, the threat of unjust criminalization continues to hang over all people living with HIV in Canada.

Richard Elliott is a lawyer and executive director of the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network (aidslaw.ca) and a founding member of the Canadian Coalition to Reform HIV Criminalization (HIVcriminalization.ca).

Published in The Vancouver Sun on April 25,2018

Chile: Chilean deputy promotes bill seeking to criminalise HIV transmission

Chilean Deputy: those who intentionally spread HIV should be imprisoned (Google translation – For original article in Spanish, scroll below)

SANTIAGO (Sputnik) – It is necessary to send to jail those who carry the Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) and who intentionally spread it to others, Sputnik was told by Chilean government deputy Juan Antonio Coloma.

“A person with a deadly disease such as the Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome (AIDS) can not be sanctioned in our Penal Code when they transmit it to others, knowing they have it and with the intention of infecting them,” said the parliamentarian who promoted the bill foreseeing sanctions for those cases.

The bill has four requirements for the crime to be carried out: that the person knows that they have the disease, that they intend to transmit it, that they have participated in a behavior that poses a risk of transmission and that they have infected someone.

The legislator belonging to the Independent Democratic Union party (right) said that this behavior is punished in other countries “such as Germany, Italy, Argentina and Peru” and that “it is relevant that in Chile there is also a sanction.”

“Some do it, for example, as a form of revenge, after having been infected by the disease they are dedicated to infecting other people, this is the criminal type that we are expecting to be discussed in the Health Committee of the Chamber of Deputies “, he claimed.

Coloma also responded to the criticism of the Progressive Party (left) deputy, Marisela Santibañez, who told Emol that Coloma  that it “is wrong to want to send sick people to jail” and asked “not to criminalize the issue.”

“They intend to caricature a project that although it is not intended to be an effective measure to combat AIDS, seeks not to leave impunity to those infected who transmit the disease with intent,” the parliamentarian replied to this agency.

However, he added that this measure “should be part of a battery of projects, obviously we must also talk about sex education and facilitating access to HIV tests.”

Earlier this week, the director of the HIV Center of the Clinical Hospital of the University of Chile, Alejandro Afani, said in an interview with the newspaper La Segunda that between 2010 and 2017 the infections by this virus increased by 96% and that the disease “is out of control”.

Afani said that the largest number of people infected is in the group of those between 15 and 25 years old.

The Ministry of Health informed on Wednesday that it will start a new multi-sector campaign called the National HIV / AIDS Plan, working together with the Ministry of Education.

Published in Sputnik Mundo on April 13, 2018

________________________

SANTIAGO (Sputnik) — Es necesario enviar a la cárcel a aquellos que porten el Virus de Inmunodeficiencia Humana (VIH) y que intencionalmente se lo contagien a otros, dijo a Sputnik el diputado oficialista chileno, Juan Antonio Coloma.

No puede quedar sin sanción en nuestro Código Penal una persona con una enfermedad mortal como el Síndrome de Inmunodeficiencia Adquirida (Sida) que contagie a otro sabiendo que la tiene y con la intención de contagiarla”, afirmó el parlamentario impulsor del proyecto de ley que prevé esas sanciones para esos casos.

El proyecto de ley tiene cuatro requisitos para que se cumpla el delito: que la persona sepa que tiene la enfermedad, que tenga intención de contagiar, que haya participado en una conducta de riesgo de transmisión y que haya infectado a alguien.

El legislador perteneciente al partido Unión Demócrata Independiente (derecha) dijo que esta conducta es castigada en otros países “como Alemania, Italia, Argentina y Perú” y que “es relevante que en Chile también exista una sanción”.

“Algunos lo hacen, por ejemplo, como una forma de venganza, después de haberse contagiado la enfermedad se dedican a contagiar a otras personas, ese es el tipo penal que nosotros estamos esperando que se discuta en la Comisión de Salud de la Cámara de Diputados”, afirmó.

Coloma también respondió a las críticas de la diputada del Partido Progresista (izquierda), Marisela Santibañez, quien dijo al medio online Emol que Coloma “se equivoca al querer mandar a la cárcel a personas enfermas” y pidió “no criminalizar el tema”.

“Ellos pretenden caricaturizar un proyecto que si bien no tiene la intención de ser la medida efectiva para combatir el Sida, busca no dejar en la impunidad a aquellos contagiados que transmitan la enfermedad con dolo”, contestó el parlamentario a esta agencia.

Sin embargo, agregó que esta medida “debe ser parte de una batería de proyectos, evidentemente también hay que hablar de educación sexual y de la facilitación al acceso a los exámenes del VIH”.

A comienzos de esta semana, el director del Centro VIH del Hospital Clínico de la Universidad de Chile, Alejandro Afani, dijo en una entrevista al diario La Segunda que entre los años 2010 y 2017 los contagios por este virus aumentaron un 96% y que la enfermedad “está fuera de control”.

Afani indicó que la mayor cantidad de contagiados está en el grupo de los que tienen entre 15 y 25 años.

El Ministerio de Salud informó el miércoles que iniciará una nueva campaña multisectorial llamada Plan Nacional del VIH/SIDA, realizando un trabajo en conjunto con el Ministerio de Educación.

US: HIV criminalisation distracts from the real challenges involved in HIV prevention and compounds injustices

Rethinking Criminalization of HIV Exposure — Lessons from California’s New Legislation

Laws that criminalize certain behaviors on the basis of the person’s HIV status have long been challenged as ineffective prevention measures that harm public health. They are nevertheless widespread: according to the Center for HIV Law and Policy, 34 states have HIV-specific criminal statutes, and 23 have applied more general laws (e.g., against assault with a deadly weapon) in order to criminalize HIV exposure. Most of these laws don’t reflect current evidence regarding protective factors such as antiretroviral treatment (ART), and many encompass behaviors that carry negligible risk.

California is now breaking from these precedents. In October 2017, Governor Jerry Brown signed SB 239, which reduces the criminal charges associated with exposing a sexual partner to HIV without disclosing one’s HIV status. In place of former felony charges, California will impose misdemeanor charges that carry a maximum of 6 months of jail time and will reserve penalties for intentional disease transmission. The law also repeals felony charges for solicitation (prostitution) by people who have tested positive for HIV, and it decriminalizes their donation of blood or tissue.

The strongest arguments for criminalizing HIV exposure emphasize two functions of criminal law: retribution and deterrence. But emerging evidence casts doubt on both those justifications. The justification for criminalizing HIV exposure for the purpose of retribution is that such behavior is morally blameworthy. If we follow this rationale, the defendant’s state of mind is important. Most HIV-specific statutes, however, omit intent to infect as a condition of the offense — simply being aware of one’s HIV status is enough to warrant a penalty. Such laws also do little to differentiate among reasons for nondisclosure (e.g., fears of partner violence, or economic necessity for sex workers), and they often impose heavy penalties for conduct that poses slim risks of infection or about which there is substantial moral ambiguity.1 Retribution is particularly inappropriate for behaviors that have virtually no capacity to transmit infection, and prevention tools for HIV-positive people (e.g., ART) have reclassified many activities as lower risk.

Evidence also indicates that penalties associated with HIV-specific statutes are unevenly imposed on the basis of race and sex. In California, for example, black and Latino people compose half the population of people with HIV but two thirds of defendants in HIV-criminalization cases; black women, in particular, account for only 4% of the state’s HIV-positive population but 21% of these cases.2Moreover, among people arrested for HIV-related crimes, white men were released and not charged in 61% of incidents, as compared with 44% of incidents for black women, 39% for white women, and 38% for black men. Discriminatory enforcement of HIV-criminalization statutes compounds injustices based on race, sex, and socioeconomic status, and it undermines the retributivist rationale for HIV criminalization.

Judged against the goal of deterrence, HIV-specific statutes haven’t been successful, and they may detract from more effective prevention efforts such as advances in treatment and blood-supply screening. Past analyses have found that neither the presence of an HIV-criminalization statute nor people’s awareness of it affects their views regarding responsibility for HIV transmission.1 These statutes therefore may not affect moral calculations for people making disclosure decisions. And although awareness of the law and fear of prosecution have been associated with earlier disclosure of serostatus, analyses have found no effect of these statutes on rates of sex without using condoms or on HIV or AIDS incidence,1,3 perhaps in part because 40% of new infections can be traced to people who don’t know their HIV status.4

The deterrence rationale is particularly weak for statutes that neglect scientific evidence on HIV transmission and prevention. A majority of Americans with HIV have achieved viral suppression, which is proven to reduce, if not eliminate, transmission risk. Similarly, criminalization of blood donation neglects the fact that donated blood is now screened for HIV before use, resulting in residual risks that are lower than 1 per 1 million donations, and Food and Drug Administration guidelines exclude donors who may be at risk. Criminalizing blood donation by people with HIV doesn’t add to these protections and may discourage donors from disclosing information on risk behaviors.

Research increasingly suggests that HIV-criminalization statutes can also cause harm. Such laws may increase HIV-related stigma, which is linked to poor engagement in care. The possibility of criminal penalties for known exposure may also encourage people to remain unaware of their HIV status and to withhold information that is central to partner-notification efforts. One analysis, for example, found that HIV testing decreased after there was media coverage of HIV-specific prosecutions.5 Providers have also reported that criminalization inhibits trusting relationships with their patients with HIV, potentially leading to deferred ART treatment (and reducing its potential for preventing transmission).

Unlike most state legislation penalizing HIV exposure, California’s new misdemeanor statute reflects up-to-date science. The law applies only to people who know they have an infectious disease, who act with specific intent to transmit the disease to another person, who engage in conduct posing a substantial risk of transmission without attempting to prevent transmission, and who transmit the disease to someone who doesn’t know that the person is infected. Behaviors such as spitting and biting aren’t considered to pose substantial risk, and acquiring an infection while pregnant and refusing treatment while pregnant are specifically exempted. The statute encompasses all infectious diseases, not just HIV — which may mitigate HIV-related stigma.

We believe that California’s new legislation is a meaningful improvement over its former law, although the remaining misdemeanor charge may still permit discriminatory enforcement based on race and sex. HIV status may also still be used as a sentence enhancement for some nonconsensual sex offenses.

California is not alone in taking a more evidence-based and less stigmatizing approach to HIV prevention. In 2016, for example, Colorado repealed two HIV-criminalization laws and modernized its statutory language regarding sexually transmitted infections. But additional developments counsel against optimism; the Ohio Supreme Court recently upheld a charge of felonious assault for people with HIV who have sex without disclosing their HIV status.

Laws criminalizing HIV exposure and transmission can distract from the real challenges involved in preventing the spread of HIV, and they fail to account for the structural factors that underlie risk. We believe existing HIV-criminalization statutes should continue to be restructured, amended, or repealed. A broad-based harm-reduction approach could involve modernizing statutory language on infectious disease, updating prosecutorial guidelines, developing guidance to support HIV treatment and testing efforts that may be affected by laws, and supporting research into how criminal statutes affect HIV prevention and treatment. By providing draft language for amended legislation and crafting model policies for public health authorities, researchers and advocates can help states move toward more evidence-based and effective responses to HIV.

Authors affiliations

From the Department of Health Administration and Policy, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA (Y.T.Y.); and the Columbia Law School and the Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, NY (K.U.).

References: 

  1. Burris S, Beletsky L, Burleson JA, Case P, Lazzarini Z. Do criminal laws influence HIV risk behavior? An empirical trial. Ariz State Law J 2007;39:467–519 (http://ssrn.com/abstract=977274).

  2. Hasenbush A, Miyashita A, Wilson BDM. HIV criminalization in California: penal implications for people living with HIV/AIDS. Los Angeles: The Williams Institute, December 2015(https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/research/health-and-hiv-aids/hiv-criminalization-in-california-penal-implications-for-people-living-with-hivaids/).

  3. Sweeney P, Gray SC, Purcell DW, et al. Association of HIV diagnosis rates and laws criminalizing HIV exposure in the United States. AIDS 2017;31:1483–1488.

  4. Dailey AF, Hoots BE, Hall HI, et al. Human immunodeficiency virus testing and diagnosis delays — United States. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2017;66:1300–1306.

  5. Lee SG. Criminal law and HIV testing: empirical analysis of how at-risk individuals respond to the law. Yale J Health Policy Law Ethics 2014;14:194–238.

Published in the New England Journal of Medicine, March 29, 2018

N Engl J Med 2018; 378:1174-1175

DOI: 10.1056/NEJMp1716981

Canada: Experts believe that the Novia Scotia Court of Appeal recent decision in a non-disclosure case will guide future cases

N.S. appeal will give guidance for future HIV non-disclosure cases, lawyers say

Tuesday, February 27, 2018 @ 9:25 AM | By Terry Davidson

The acquittal of an HIV-positive man in an East Coast non-disclosure case will further guide Canada’s legal community in its response to new science around risk of transmission, experts say.

The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal decision in R. v. Thompson 2018 NSCA 13, rendered Feb. 15, involves Claude Thompson, an Antigonish man who was charged with failing in 2011 to tell two women he was HIV-positive before having consensual sex with them.

During Thompson’s 2016 trial, Justice Suzanne Hood found that Thompson had been taking antiviral drug therapy and used a condom with the first complainant but not the second. She also leaned on expert testimony that there was negligible risk of transmission in this case.

As a result, Justice Hood acquitted Thompson of two counts of aggravated sexual assault, but deemed him guilty of the “lesser and included offences of sexual assault causing bodily harm” after finding the two women suffered psychologically from the initial uncertainty of not knowing if they had been infected. (Both subsequently tested negative.)

This, she ruled, vitiated their consent.

But Appeal Court Justice Duncan Beveridge threw out Thompson’s bodily harm convictions, ruling that unless there was a realistic possibility of transmission, consent could not be vitiated simply by psychological harm.

“The sole issue in this case is whether psychological harm said to have been caused by non-disclosure of HIV status vitiates consent to sexual activity.” The short answer is no, it does not,” stated Justice Beveridge, with Justices Linda Lee Oland and Joel Fichaud in agreement. “Failure by a sexual partner to disclose that he or she has a sexually transmitted disease is morally reprehensible, but it is not usually a crime.”

Justice Beveridge went on to talk of stress and upset being “irrelevant” in the “eyes of the law.”

“Emotional stress or upset, even if they could legitimately amount to bodily harm within the meaning of the Criminal Code, are, in the eyes of the law, irrelevant.”

In December, the federal government released the Criminal Justice System’s Response to Non-Disclosure of HIV, a research paper warning of the over-criminalization of infected people who don’t disclose their condition but pose a “negligible” risk to non-infected partners. It also lays out various sexual scenarios which would involve a low — or even nonexistent — possibility of transmission, even if a condom is not used.

Criminal law, it stated, should not apply to those who do not disclose but have maintained a suppressed viral load, are taking antiretroviral treatment, use condoms or engage only in oral sex.

Following the paper’s release, Ontario’s Ministry of the Attorney General announced that the province’s Crowns would be told to limit non-disclosure prosecutions, particularly for those on antiretroviral therapy and with “a suppressed viral load.”

Defence lawyers urged Crowns to re-examine both current non-disclosure cases and past convictions in light of evolving medical science.

The release of the paper was the next chapter in the changing legal landscape when it comes to non-disclosure cases.

Before it came Mabior.

In 2012, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled in R. v. Mabior 2012 SCC 47 that an infected person was not legally required to disclose their HIV-positive status if they carried a low viral load and used a condom. However, the SCC left room for some tweaking should laws need to adapt to changing science.

Toronto lawyer Cynthia Fromstein said the adherence to medical science in the Thompson case will serve to further guide Canada’s legal community in non-disclosure cases.

“It’s important because it’s a court of appeal decision that is making it very clear in terms of the reliance on medical science [being] the directive as to whether someone poses a realistic risk of transmission,” said Fromstein. “That’s important because we can now use that. As a defence counsel, I can use that on cases where they are still prosecuting. If there is a prosecution for oral sex, or a prosecution where there is a condom used, now there is some law that is supportive of the notion of what it takes … to find someone guilty, and perhaps it will also influence (provincial attorney generals) in not prosecuting, the fact that there is a legal directive, a court of appeal decision.”

Cecile Kazatchkine, senior policy analyst with the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network, said Justice Hood’s psychological harm conviction of Thompson was of some concern.

“For years we have seen many different attempts by some actors in the justice system to expand the criminal law against people living with HIV,” said Kazatchkine in an e-mail. “Such attempts have included pushing the psychological harm argument. While the trial judge’s verdict in Thompson … was concerning (and unjust), we knew there was no legal basis for such argument. … The interpretation of the legal text of a ‘realistic possibility of transmission’ has created uncertainty, but the law around HIV non-disclosure has always been clear: there can be no conviction for non-disclosure in absence of actual transmission or a significant risk of transmission.”

Published in The Lawyer’s Daily on February 27, 2018