HIV Justice Network presents important new HIV criminalisation data today at AIDS 2016

Today, at the International AIDS Conference in Durban, the HIV Justice Network and GNP+ will present important new data on HIV criminalisation based on updated research from our Advancing HIV Justice 2 report.

Global Trends in HIV Criminalisation (Download the pdf here)

HIV criminalisation is a growing, global phenomenon that is seldom given the attention it deserves considering its impact on both public health and human rights, undermining the HIV response.

In many instances, HIV criminalisation laws are exceedingly broad – either in their explicit wording, or in the way they have been interpreted and applied – making people living with HIV (and those perceived by authorities to be at risk of HIV) extremely vulnerable to a wide range of human rights violations.

Seventy-two countries currently have HIV-specific laws, rising to 101 jurisdictions when individual US states are included. Notably, 30 countries in Africa have such laws, including new overly-broad laws in Uganda (2014) and Nigeria (2015).

At least 61 countries have reported HIV-related criminal cases. This total increases to 105 jurisdictions when individual US states and Australian states/territories are counted separately.

However, not all countries have enforced HIV-specific laws and other countries have applied general laws: 32 applied general or public health laws, 26 used HIV-specific laws and 3 (Australia, Denmark and United States) have applied both.

During the 30-month period: April 2013 to October 2015, we found reports of at least 313 arrests, prosecutions and/or convictions in 28 countries.

The highest number of cases during this period were reported in:

• Russia (at least 115);

• United States of America (at least 104);

• Belarus (at least 20);

• Canada (at least 17);

• France (at least 7);

• United Kingdom (at least 6);

• Italy (at least 6);

• Australia (at least 5); and

• Germany (at least 5).

Global trends in HIV criminalisation

Uganda: Civil societies challenge HIV criminalisation

KAMPALA  – “Whereas the law might have potential to positively contribute to the current HIV/AIDS response efforts in Uganda, there are some contentious clauses that could deter all the benefits realized in the fight against the scourge.”

This is what activists and people living with HIV are saying.

The HIV and AIDS Prevention and Control Act came into effect on July 31, 2014 when President Yoweri Museveni assented to it. But people living with HIV, together with civil society organizations, say it presents a challenge for the human rights of infected people and also undermines several critical issues.

The salient features that are scanned out in the law are: Clauses 41 and 43 of the Act that provide for prosecution on grounds of attempted and intentional transmission of HIV, respectively. Among the provisions of the piece of legislation is criminal penalty for risk and intentional transmission of the virus.

The Act would require mandatory disclosure of one’s HIV status, failure of which would be regarded as “criminal”, and attempting to or, intentionally transmitting the virus.

Failure to use a condom where one knows their HIV status would constitute a criminal offence, making them liable for prosecution.

The Civil Society HIV/AIDS Bill Coalition has been lobbying members of parliament to change the clauses in the Act that are construed to create negative effects in the national response to HIV/AIDS, but lawmakers have been  adamant about the issue.

It is against this background that people living with HIV under their umbrella organization the National Forum of People Living with HIV & AIDS Networks in Uganda (NAFOPHANU) together with Uganda Network on Law Ethics and HIV/AIDS (UGANET) and the International Community of Women living with HIV Eastern Africa (ICWEA recently petitioned the constitutional court to review the Act and amend the contentious clauses (41, 43 and 18).

“Honestly, if proven, such behavior cannot go unpunished. The question however is ‘How can it be proven that indeed the HIV of the accuser was got from the accused?’ There is fear that public knowledge of one’s HIV positive status would be used against them due to personal differences,” says Lillian Mworeko (pictured immediately below), regional coordinator for ICWEA.

She argues that this will ultimately discourage people from testing to know their status fearing that if found positive, their status could be used against them in courts of law at any point in time.

It should thus be noted that one who does not know their status cannot be held liable under this law.

“We should avoid creating scenarios where people living with HIV/AIDS are looked at as criminals or potential criminals,” warns Dora Musinguzi, executive director of UGANET.

Eventually, she adds, people will inadvertently live with the virus without accessing treatment and by the time they get to know their status it will be too late.

Stella Kentutsi, the executive director of NAFOPHANU, regrets that these clauses seem to target those already openly living with HIV and as such will affect disclosure, fuel stigma and discrimination thus increasing new infections and affecting access to already available services.

“To this effect, HIV infections and deaths will escalate thus watering down all the achievements so far attained in the fight against HIV. Partner and third party notification in clause 18(2) (e) is likely to breed domestic violence as a health worker is given a right to disclose to a partner without a client’s consent. It also infringes on the right to privacy as per our constitution- Article 27,” Kentutse. –

n their petition, the concerned groups give eight strong points on which they base their ground.

1. The law when enacted will drive people underground

In the face of possible prosecution and forced disclosure, most people will hide away; there would be no reason to take an HIV test in fear of prosecution.

2. It shall be counter-productive

As people shun HIV services and treatment for all possible fears that arise with the provisions of the law, prevention and control cannot be achieved.

3. Taking an HIV test is the beginning point for both control and prevention, however the ACT will deter this effort by empowering medical practitioners to release test results to third parties.

4. It will indiscriminately harass women

Most women get to know their HIV status before their male counterparts as they interface with medical facilities more often. Giving them an extra burden to disclose their status mandatory as a blanket requirement may subject them to violence, abandonment and abuse as they are usually blamed for bringing the virus.  In our societies, women cannot easily negotiate sex nor condom use, yet failure to use one while they know their status will warrant such a woman punishment for intentional transmission of the HIV virus.

5. May breakdown families who are already vulnerable

Opening a window for prosecution will encourage family breakdowns where one partner who gets to know their status, blames it on the other and files a case in court.  Intentional transmission may never get proved, but the family structure will have been distorted, partners desert each other with the consequent burden born by the poor orphans. HIV status is bad enough for the children but humiliating and sometimes vicious litigation between parents tears their lives apart.

6. Is not situation-specific or realistic

The conditions for this ACT to operate are not realistic, it is extremely difficult to prove who infected the other and therefore it is to no effect. The judiciary in this country is very much strained and it takes long to pass judgment.  How many lives would be destroyed if it takes an average five to seven years to get judgment?  Worse, the Police force is ineffective and is known to fail to comprehend and prosecute cases of this nature.

7. Selective prosecution

The ACT targets the 20% of Ugandans that have tested and know their status and presumes that some of those knowingly and intentionally transmit HIV. What about the rest of the population who do not know their status yet transmit and cannot be found in the ambit of this ACT? This is unfair, obnoxious and unreasonable and cannot possibly be regarded as an efficacious law.

8. Increased stigma and discrimination

The moment HIV is construed with criminalization and then people go into hiding, those living with HIV will suffer societal victimization since they would now be regarded as threats to public health. As a nation, we can still do better since on this one, we are all in it together.

Originally published in New Vision

AIDS 2016: UNAIDS reports on HIV JUSTICE WORLDWIDE's Beyond Blame pre-conference

On 17 July, some 200 people living with HIV, human rights activists and representatives of key populations gathered for a one-day meeting on challenging HIV criminalization under the title “Beyond blame: challenging HIV criminalization.” The event, a preconference meeting before the 21st International AIDS Conference, being held in Durban, South Africa, was organized by HIV Justice Worldwide, an international partnership of organizations, including the AIDS and Rights Alliance for Southern Africa, the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network, the Global Network of People Living with HIV, the HIV Justice Network, the International Community of Women Living with HIV, the Positive Women’s Network USA and the Sero Project.

The event was an opportunity for people working to end unjust HIV criminalization in all regions of the world to share recent developments, successful approaches and challenges. It also mobilized participants on the urgency to address unjust HIV criminalization as a violation of human rights and serious barrier to efforts to scale up HIV prevention, treatment and care services.

The meeting heard individuals who have face HIV criminalization recount the far-reaching personal, social and legal impacts of unjust prosecution on their lives and that of their families. Lawyers and civil society activists who have led successful efforts against HIV criminalization, including in Australia, Canada, Kenya, Sweden and the United States of America, shared their experiences and approaches. HIV scientists and clinicians were called upon to become more involved in efforts to ensure that the application of the criminal law is consistent with best available evidence relating to risk, harm and proof in the context of HIV. Similarly, members of parliament and the judiciary were highlighted as key stakeholders whose understanding and engagement is central to efforts to end unjust HIV criminalization.

QUOTES

“HIV-RELATED PROSECUTIONS ARE BECOMING INCREASINGLY COMMONPLACE. THE EVIDENCE THAT CRIMINALIZATION AS A PUBLIC HEALTH STRATEGY DOES NOT WORK IS TOO PLAIN TO CONTEST. IT IS OUR RESPONSIBILITY TO END IT.”

PATRICK HERMINIE SPEAKER OF THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY OF SEYCHELLES

“HIV CRIMINALIZATION IS PROFOUNDLY BAD POLICY. IT IS BASED ON FEAR AND OUTDATED UNDERSTANDING OF HIV RISK AND HARM. CRIMINALIZATION MAGNIFIES STIGMA AND DISCRIMINATION TOWARDS PEOPLE LIVING WITH HIV. PEOPLE LIVING WITH HIV HAVE BEEN AT THE FOREFRONT OF EFFORTS TO END UNJUST CRIMINALIZATION AND SHOULD BE COMMENDED FOR THEIR COURAGE AND COMMITMENT TO JUSTICE.” 

JUSTICE EDWIN CAMERON JUDGE OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA

“MY LIFE WILL NOT BE THE SAME AFTER FACING HIV CRIMINALIZATION. MY 30 YEARS WORKING AS A NURSE AND DEDICATED TO SAVING LIVES HAVE BEEN ERASED. I HAVE SPENT ALMOST A YEAR IN PRISON. I HAVE BEEN BRANDED A CRIMINAL AND A KILLER EVEN THOUGH I HAVE HARMED NO ONE.”

ROSEMARY NAMUBIRU UGANDAN NURSE

Originally published by UNAIDS

BEYOND BLAME
Challenging HIV Criminalisation @ AIDS 2016, Durban

(29 min, HJN, South Africa, 2016)

On 17 July 2016, approximately 150 advocates, activists, researchers, and community leaders met in Durban, South Africa, for Beyond Blame: Challenging HIV Criminalisation – a full-day pre-conference meeting preceding the 21st International AIDS Conference (AIDS 2016) to discuss progress on the global effort to combat the unjust use of the criminal law against people living with HIV.

Attendees at the convening hailed from at least 36 countries on six continents (Africa, Asia, Europe, North America, Oceania, and South America).

Beyond Blame was convened by HIV Justice Worldwide, an initiative made up of global, regional, and national civil society organisations – most of them led by people living with HIV – who are working together to build a worldwide movement to end HIV criminalisation.

The meeting was opened by the Honourable Dr Patrick Herminie, Speaker of Parliament of the Seychelles, and closed by Justice Edwin Cameron, both of whom gave powerful, inspiring speeches. In between the two addresses, moderated panels and more intimate, focused breakout sessions catalysed passionate and illuminating conversations amongst dedicated, knowledgeable advocates

Jamaica: Growing calls to make HIV transmission a criminal offense

Legal Loophole – Jamaica Has No Law To Charge Persons Who Wilfully Attempt To Spread HIV

There are growing calls in local legal circles to implement laws to make it a criminal offence for persons to wilfully and knowingly spread the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV).

Although it is reported that Jamaica has an estimated 32,000 persons living with HIV, so far, no person has been charged and convicted of exposing another person to infection by engaging in unsafe sexual conduct.

“There is no clear law which makes it an offence,” said attorney-at-law Chukwuemeka Cameron, as he argued that someone should take a case to court to test the law.

According to Cameron, if someone should be brave enough to take such a case to the courts it may open a floodgate.

“It is a new disease which came about after the enactment of the Offences Against the Person Act, and so this is a perfect example of the need for the law to change with new circumstances,” agreed attorney-at-law Bert Samuels.

“We have kept abreast of the changes of computer technology to enhance commerce but we have failed to look at a problem that touches and concerns our health. Our Parliament is entrusted to pass laws for peace, order and good governance of the country, and must, as a matter of urgency, pass laws to punish those who knowingly pass a deadly disease,” added Samuels.

The debate on the wilful and knowing spread of HIV was sparked recently as the Supreme Court had to decide, in an extradition case, whether the transmission of HIV by sexual relations is an offence in Jamaica.

The court ruled that charges could only be brought in cases where the victim was infected with the virus. But attorney-at-law Peter Champagnie has a different view.

Champagnie argues that there should be specific legislation to deal with offences committed knowingly by HIV-infected persons, as he disagreed with the court’s ruling.

CULPABILITY

“Although a victim may not be infected by HIV from unprotected sex, I cannot understand why it could not be categorised as an attempt,” said Champagnie.

According to Champagnie, the fact that a victim is not infected does not absolve the infected person of culpability.

“To my mind, he would have known of his status and was reckless as to whether or not the persons contracted the disease,” said Champagnie.

Attorney-at-law Don Foote, who represented 47-year-old Jamaican, Alfred Flowers, had argued that he should not be extradited to Canada to face charges of aggravated sexual assault because there was no corresponding offence in Jamaica.

Flowers knew, since June 1996, that he was HIV-positive but he had unprotected sex with four women, including his wife who he married in 2002 without informing them of his status.

The women said if they knew he was HIV-positive, they would not have been intimate with him. Three of the women are now HIV-positive while the fourth is currently HIV-negative.

Director of state proceedings Althea Jarrett and senior deputy director of public prosecutions Jeremy Taylor could find no local case to use as a precedent, and had to rely on authorities from other jurisdictions to support their interpretation of the Offences Against the Person Act.

They relied on Section 22 of the act to oppose Flowers’ contention that there was no corresponding offence in Jamaica.

“Whosoever shall unlawfully and maliciously wound or inflict grievous bodily harm upon any other person with or without any weapon or instrument, shall be guilty of a misdemeanour, and being convicted thereof, shall be liable to be imprisoned for a term not exceeding three years,” the section reads.

EXTRADITION TO CANADA

The court comprising Justice Christine McDonald, Justice Sarah Thompson James, and Justice Kissock Laing, in agreeing that Flowers should be extradited to stand trial in respect of the three women who are now HIV-positive, said it was open for the court to find that a person who knows that he is infected with HIV and recklessly infects another may be guilty of inflicting grievous bodily harm contrary to Section 22 of the Offences Against the Person Act.

But the court made it clear that if the victim of unprotected sex with an HIV-positive person is not infected, then that person cannot bring any criminal charges.

The court found that there was a grave lacuna in the Jamaican law, and said further that it was unfair that Flowers would only have to answer to charges in respect of three of the four complainants.

In explaining why Flowers cannot be tried in relation to the complainant who is not infected, the court said, “The infection would be a necessary ingredient were the accused to be charged in Jamaica for the offence under Section 22 of the Offences Against the Person Act.”

Canadian Groups Say No To HIV Criminalisation

The Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network that has been opposing HIV criminalisation for some time. It argues that:

– Canada is no model when it comes to HIV criminalisation where it has become out of control. With more than 180 people charged to date, Canada has become one of the world leaders in criminalising people living with HIV, with serious implications for human rights and public health.

– UNAIDS, the Global Commission on HIV and the Law, and the UN Special Rapporteur on the right to health have all urged to limit HIV criminalisation to intentional transmission – which is far from being the case in Canada, where people can be convicted of extremely serious offence even if they had no intent to harm their partner, took precautions (used a condom or were on effective treatment) and did not transmit HIV.

“Countries may legitimately prosecute HIV transmission that was both actual and intentional, using general criminal law, but such prosecutions should be pursued with care and require a high standard of evidence and proof.”

Uganda: Civil society coalition file a constitutional petition against controversial HIV and AIDS Prevention and Control Act, 2015

KAMPALA – A network of civil society organisations has dragged the Attorney General to the Constitutional Court, querying the packaging of the HIV and AIDS Prevention and Control Act, 2015.

Representatives of the CSOs filed a constitutional petition on Thursday, lamenting that the law is undermining efforts to fight the scourge.

“I believe the law will have the overall effect of undermining public health objectives of HIV prevention and control,” the petition reads in part. –

The petitioners are Uganda Network on Law, Ethics and HIV/AIDS (UGANET), Makerere law don Prof Ben Twinomugisha, and the International Community of Women Living with HIV in Eastern Africa (ICWEA).

Government’s chief legal representative and advisor the Attorney General is listed as the respondent.

Parliament passed the bill on May 13, 2014. President Yoweri Museveni assented to the bill in August of the same year. –

US: Democratic Party pledges to "address HIV criminalization laws" in its 2016 draft party platform

Democratic Party Comes Out Strong for LGBTQ Equality in 2016 Party Platform

HRC Blog by post by Stephen Peters

Today, the Democratic Party released its draft 2016 party platform, including key provisions that focus on improving the lives of LGBTQ people and advocating for full equality.

“This is the most LGBTQ-inclusive platform of any major U.S. party,” said JoDee Winterhof, HRC’s Senior Vice President for Policy and Political Affairs. “We will continue to work with the Democratic Party to ensure the most robust platform for LGBTQ Americans. From protecting LGBTQ young people to ending the epidemic of violence against transgender people to passing an explicit and comprehensive federal non-discrimination law to bringing about an AIDS-free generation, the platform addresses many of the major challenges facing our community today.”

Here are some of the highlights:

LGBT Rights

Democrats applaud last year’s decision by the Supreme Court that recognized LGBT people— like every other American—have the right to marry the person they love. But there is still much work to be done. LGBT kids continue to be bullied at school, a restaurant can refuse to serve a transgender person, and a same-sex couple is at risk of being evicted from their home. That is unacceptable and must change. Democrats will fight for comprehensive federal non- discrimination protections for all LGBT Americans and push back against state efforts to discriminate against LGBT individuals. We will combat LGBT youth homelessness and improve school climates, and we will protect transgender individuals from violence. We will promote LGBT human rights and ensure America’s foreign policy is inclusive of LGBT people around the world.

Civil Rights

Democrats will always fight to end discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, language, religion, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability. We need to promote civility and speak out against bigotry and other forms of intolerance that have entered our political discourse. It is unacceptable to target, defame, or exclude anyone because of their religion, race, ethnicity, national origin, or sexual orientation.

HIV and AIDS

Democrats believe an AIDS-free generation is within our grasp. But we know far too many Americans still suffer, which is why we will implement the National HIV and AIDS Strategy, increase research funding for the National Institutes of Health, cap pharmaceutical expenses for people living with HIV and AIDS, address HIV criminalization laws, and expand access for HIV prevention medications, particularly for the populations most at risk of infection. Abroad, we will make the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief more effective and increase global funding for HIV and AIDS prevention and treatment. Democrats will always protect those living with HIV and AIDS from stigma and discrimination.

Supporting our Troops

[…]Democrats welcome and honor all Americans who want to serve and will continue to fight for their equal rights and recognition. We are proud of the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell and the opening of combat positions to women. Our military is strongest when people of all races, religions, sexual orientations, and gender identities are honored for their service to our country.

Racial Justice

Democrats will fight to end institutional and systemic racism in our society. We will challenge and dismantle the structures that define lasting racial, economic, political, and social inequity. Democrats will promote racial justice through fair, just, and equitable governing of all institutions serving the public and in the formation of public policy. We will push for a societal transformation to make it clear that black lives matter and there is no place for racism in our country.

Gun Violence Prevention

With 33,000 Americans dying every year, Democrats believe that we must finally take sensible action to address gun violence. While gun ownership is part of the fabric of many communities, too many families in America have suffered from gun violence. We can respect the rights of responsible gun owners while keeping our communities safe. We will expand background checks and close dangerous loopholes in our current laws, hold irresponsible dealers and manufacturers accountable, keep weapons of war—such as assault weapons—off our streets, and ensure guns do not fall into the hands of terrorists, domestic abusers, other violent criminals, and those with severe mental health issues.

US: Second HIV is not a crime training academy creates an important intersectional shift in the US anti-HIV criminalisation movement

The second HIV Is Not a Crime Training Academy, which took place in May at the University of Alabama, Huntsville, brought together more than 300 advocates from 34 US states, as well delegations from Canada and Mexico.

Organised jointly by two of our HIV JUSTICE WORLDWIDE partners, the Sero Project and Positive Women’s Network–USA, the meeting was a unique opportunity for the people most affected by HIV criminalisation to take centre stage and have their voices be heard.

As Mark S King’s blog post highlighted in his blog and video produced the week following the meeting:

The intersections of race, gender, and sexuality were given as much weight as strategy sessions on working with legislators and lawyers, and the program repeatedly drove home the fact that criminalizing behaviors related to specific groups of people is as American as apple pie. Plenary speakers included advocates for women (including transgender women), current and former sex workers, immigration reform and drug legalization advocates, and, most powerfully, people who have been prosecuted under HIV criminalization statutes.

The theme of intersectionality and what it means for HIV criminalisation advocacy was further explored in this thoughtful analysis from Olivia Ford at The Body.com.

At the first HIV Is Not a Crime gathering in Grinnell, Iowa, in 2014, the sessions focused largely on unpacking the process of mounting a legislative campaign. Huntsville attendees also received training on important skills such as using data and collaborating with attorneys. The dominant theme, however, was the mandate to understand and combat HIV criminalization as a component of the system of over-policing and mass incarceration that disproportionately and unjustly impacts black people, queer folks, immigrants, drug users, sex workers, transgender individuals and those living with and without HIV at the intersections of this constellation of experiences.

The meeting was also an opportunity to celebrate the recent modernisation of Colorado’s HIV criminalisation statutes by the Colorado Mod Squad and their political allies, notably Senator Pat Steadman; and to hear from HIV criminalisation survivors and their families about what the HIV criminalisation – and the movement to end it – means for them personally.

The biggest political coup of the meeting was a welcome video from Hilary Clinton who said that if she wins the Presidential election, she will work to “reform outdated, stigmatising” HIV criminalisation laws.

Aside from those highlighted above, a number of other blog posts and articles have been produced since the meeting.  As well as a fantastic Storify compilation by PWN-USA of social media produced during the four days, these include pieces from:

In addition, the HIV Justice Network was there with our video advocacy consultant, Nicholas Feustel of georgetown media, capturing the entire event on video, and we will be releasing a film providing a detailed overview of the entire meeting, as well as lessons learned, in the next few weeks.

Australia: Zaburoni v Queen legal analysis

This analysis is by David Buchanan SC, Barrister at Forbes Chambers, Sydney. It was originally published in LGBT Law Notes and is republished here with his permission.

In a case that should reduce the extent of overcharging in HIV criminal cases, the High Court of Australia (Australia’s apex court) has emphasised the importance of distinguishing between reckless behaviour and behaviour involving intention to transmit HIV.

In Zaburoni v The Queen [2016] HCA 12, a man was sentenced to nine and a half years in prison for unlawfully transmitting a serious diseases with intent to do so.  The evidence was that Zaburoni frequently had unprotected sex with his girlfriend, knowing that he had HIV, and that he lied to her, and later to investigating police, about his status.  However, the offence required proof of actual intention.  The High Court held that, if the evidence had established Zaburoni’s awareness of the probability that his conduct would result in his girlfriend contracting HIV, it would have been open to the jury to infer that Zaburoni meant to bring about that result.  However, the evidence did not rise to that level.

The Court distinguished between intention, on the one hand, and desire or motive, noting that a person can intend a result without desiring it.  Thus a person can have the infection of their sex partner as a purpose of their conduct whilst regretting that consequence.  The plurality observed “(t)he complainant said the appellant preferred unprotected sexual intercourse because it was more pleasurable.  Accepting that the appellant engaged in unprotected sexual intercourse because it gave him pleasure is not necessarily inconsistent with proof that he also had the intention thereby of transmitting HIV to the complainant.   It is the identification of evidence from which the latter inference could be drawn to the criminal standard that is the issue in this appeal.”

Zaburoni had tested positive to HIV and been told he must use condoms for sex.  The evidence was that he understood that advice.  But when he took up a relationship with a woman he told her he had been tested for HIV and was not HIV positive.  He had unprotected intercourse with her, telling her that he found condomless sex more pleasurable.  The complainant suffered seroconversion illness.  Zaburoni told her his brother had died from AIDS.  When the woman asked Zaburoni whether he had HIV, he said he did not.

The relationship later broke down.  About a year afterwards, the woman was diagnosed with HIV/AIDS and when she tackled Zaburoni about it, he admitted he was infected and said he found out after they had broken up.  She asked why he had failed to tell her of his condition.  He replied that he had not wanted to make her unhappy and that he thought that she was having a good time.  He said that he had been told by the doctors that he had had HIV for two years.  A friend of the complainant asked Zaburoni why he had not told the complainant and he responded that “I didn’t want to ruin her life”.

Later, in both a conversation with the complainant monitored by police and in interviews with police, Zaburoni lied about when he knew he was infected and the extent of his unprotected sex with the complainant.  Later Zaburoni, who had migrated to Australia many years previously, admitted having submitted a blood sample from an uninfected friend in order to satisfy Immigration authorities that he did not have HIV.

Although there was evidence that, given the length of the relationship (21 months), the risk of the complainant contracting HIV were about 14 per cent, there was no evidence that Zaburoni knew what the statistical likelihood was of the transmission of HIV as the result of unprotected heterosexual sex.  The plurality said “To the extent that the inference of intent depends upon foresight of the risk of the sexual transmission of HIV, it is the appellant’s understanding, whether informed or otherwise, that is material.  There was ample evidence from which to find that the appellant was aware of the risk of transmitting HIV to the complainant through unprotected sexual intercourse.  Apart from the medical advice that the appellant was given by several doctors in 1998 after he learned of his HIV positive status, his lies to the complainant about that status before their sexual relationship commenced, and during the course of it, point to his awareness of the risk of sexual transmission.  So, too, do his lies to the police about the number of times they engaged in unprotected sexual intercourse.”

The plurality concluded that “(a) rational inference open on the evidence is that the appellant engaged in regular unprotected sexual intercourse with the complainant because it enhanced his sexual pleasure and he was reckless of the risk of transmitting HIV to her.   The existence of that inference lessens the force of reasoning to a conclusion that the appellant intended to transmit the disease from the fact of frequent unprotected sexual intercourse.   Apart from frequent unprotected sexual intercourse, there is no evidence to support the inference that the appellant had that intention.  And the evidence fell well short of proving that the appellant believed that it was virtually certain that he would pass on HIV by regular unprotected sexual intercourse.”   In particular, none of the lies proved that Zaburoni knew that it was virtually certain that he would infect his partner with HIV if he had unprotected sex with her.

Whilst Zaburoni’s conduct was described as a form of “callous deception”, what this meant (as another judge put it) was that the evidence left open “a reasonable hypothesis that the appellant, not knowing the degree of risk, was extremely reckless and also callous.  As appalling as his selfish recklessness was, it cannot be equated with a subjective, actual intent to transmit the HIV virus.  In the absence of evidence of malice or knowledge of the degree of risk, a subjective intent to inflict the HIV virus was not proven beyond reasonable doubt.”

The conviction for intentionally transmitting a serious disease was quashed and a verdict of guilty of unlawfully doing grievous bodily harm substituted.

The full High Court decision can be accessed here.

A number of news reports and other analyses of the Zaburoni case can be found here.

Sweden: Civil societies organisations call for guidelines to prosecutors in cases of HIV-criminalisation

“Major Uncertainty about HIV in Courts – The Prosecutor must act”

Open letter to the Prosecutor General Anders Perklev:

The organizations Hiv-Sweden, RFSL and RFSU call for guidelines for prosecutors for prosecutions against people living with HIV who are at risk of transmitting the virus via sexual contacts.

Signatory organizations promote the development of HIV in Sweden, how people living with HIV perceive their situation, the way in which case law looks and the medical successes in the field. Since 2013, the knowledge base “Infectiousness in Treated HIV Infection” has been developed by the Public Health Authority and the Reference Group for AntiViral Therapy (RAV), which shows that there is a negligible risk of HIV transmission during well-treated treatment.

Since 2016, there is also a document written by medical experts in which the disability rate in HIV is reduced from 40-60% to 0-10%.

These documents should have a major impact on the prosecution of persons, for whom crimes are prosecuted, how damages for a possible transfer should be measured and how seriously the chronic disease HIV should be considered.

RFSU, RFSL and Hiv-Sweden can say that there is great uncertainty in courts and justice in general how to handle the progress made in the medical field regarding HIV. There is no precedent since the knowledge base came and, as the Prosecutor is aware, no trial was given in the Supreme Court for Case B 2152-13, the Court of Appeal over Skåne and Blekinge, in which a person living with HIV and had a so-called well-treated treatment was released from criminal liability.

Signatory organizations welcome the Court of Appeal’s judgment, which clearly takes into account medical success, contagiousness and other facts in the case. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court (in connection with the grant of a review) did not refer to the decision NJA 2004 p. 176, which means that the judgment of the Court of First Instance can not be regarded as prejudicial.

Signatory organizations find it deeply unfortunate that the Supreme Court did not test the case partly referring to precedents no longer based on current knowledge. This means that the legal situation is unchanged and unclear, which creates legal uncertainty for people living with HIV.

Regrettably, we can say that the courts have begun to take care of the medical successes that have been made since 2004, and in the days a new intelligence judgment in which a man living with HIV and standing on a well-treated treatment is released from criminal liability (see Day’s Juridics 2016- 05-31 ). We hope that Objective B 212-15 from Uppsala District Court will proceed in the judicial system and create a new practice in this area.

The judgment states that the risk of HIV transmission to unprotected intercourse is so small in case of well-being treatment that one can not reasonably expect the effect of transfer and thus does not fulfill the objective crimes for the development of danger to another.

Even though the profession assesses the risk of HIV transmission to be neglected in well-preserved HIV even in unprotected intercourse, prosecutors continue to famble as to which acts will lead to prosecutions and which crimes are prosecuted. For example, some prosecutors choose to prosecute people living with HIV, with well-treated treatment, without the intention of transmitting HIV and there was no transfer for attempted abuse, which is neither reasonable nor correct.

RFSU, RFSL and HIV-Sweden want guidelines from the RA to the prosecutor who takes into account the major medical achievements and the knowledge base available to create a fairness in how the judicial system manages this already vulnerable group of people living in our society HIV.

—————————————————————————-

“Stor osäkerhet om HIV hos domstolar och rättsväsende – riksåklagaren måste agera“

Öppet brev till riksåklagaren Anders Perklev:

Organisationerna Hiv-Sverige, RFSL och RFSU efterlyser riktlinjer för åklagare avseende åtal mot personer som lever med hiv och som riskerar att överföra viruset via sexuella kontakter.

Undertecknande organisationer följer utvecklingen noga avseende hiv i Sverige, hur personer som lever med hiv uppfattar sin situation, hur rättspraxis ser ut och de medicinska framgångar som görs på området. Sedan år 2013 finns kunskapsunderlaget “Smittsamhet vid behandlad hivinfektion” framtaget av Folkhälsomyndigheten och Referensgruppen för AntiViral terapi (RAV), i vilket det framgår att det föreligger försumbar risk för överföring av hiv vid välinställd behandling.

Sedan år 2016 finns det även ett dokument skrivet av medicinska experter i vilket invaliditetsgraden vid hiv sänks från tidigare 40-60 % ned till 0-10 %.

Dessa dokument borde få stor inverkan på när personer åtalas, för vilka brott personer åtalas, hur skadestånd vid en eventuell överföring bör mätas och hur allvarlig den kroniska sjukdomen hiv skall betraktas vara.

RFSU, RFSL och Hiv-Sverige kan konstatera att det råder stor osäkerhet i domstolar och rättsväsendet i övrigt hur de ska hantera de framsteg som görs på det medicinska området gällande hiv. Det saknas prejudikat sedan kunskapsunderlaget kom, och som riksåklagaren väl känner till gavs inte prövningstillstånd i högsta domstolen för mål B 2152-13, Hovrätten över Skåne och Blekinge, i vilket en person som lever med hiv och hade en så kallad välinställd behandling friades från straffansvar.

Undertecknande organisationer välkomnar hovrättens dom, som tydligt tar hänsyn till medicinska framgångar, smittsamhetsdokumentet och fakta i övrigt i målet. Dessvärre hänvisade Högsta domstolen (i samband med att prövningstillstånd inte gavs) till avgörandet NJA 2004 s. 176 vilket innebär att hovrättens dom inte kan anses vara prejudicerande.

Undertecknande organisationer finner det djupt olyckligt att Högsta domstolen dels inte prövade målet dels hänvisade till prejudikat som inte längre baserar sig på aktuell kunskap. Detta innebär att rättsläget är oförändrat och otydligt, vilket skapar en rättsosäkerhet för personer som lever med hiv.

Glädjande nog kan vi konstatera att domstolarna ändock har börjat ta till sig av de medicinska framgångar som gjorts sedan 2004 och i dagarna kom en ny underrättsdom i vilken en man som lever med hiv och står på välinställd behandling frias från straffansvar (se Dagens Juridik 2016-05-31) . Vi hoppas att mål B 212-15 från Uppsala tingsrätt skall gå vidare inom rättsväsendet och skapa en ny praxis på området.

I domen konstateras att risken för överföring av hiv vid oskyddade samlag är så pass liten vid välinställd behandling att man inte rimligen kan förvänta sig effekten att överföring sker, och att det därmed inte uppfyller de objektiva brottsförutsättningarna för framkallande av fara för annan.

Trots att professionen bedömer risken för överföring av hiv vara försumbar vid välinställd hiv även vid oskyddade samlag fortsätter åklagare att famla när det gäller vilka gärningar som skall leda till åtal och vilka brott som åtalas för. Vissa åklagare väljer till exempel att åtala personer som lever med hiv, med välinställd behandling, utan uppsåt att överföra hiv och där ingen överföring skett för försök till misshandel vilket varken är rimligt eller korrekt.

RFSU, RFSL och Hiv-Sverige önskar riktlinjer från RÅ till landets åklagare som tar hänsyn till de stora medicinska framgångar som gjorts och det kunskapsunderlag som finns, för att skapa en rimlighet i hur rättsväsendet hanterar denna redan utsatta grupp personer i vårt samhälle som lever med hiv.