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:

The present constitutional challenge promoted by the National Commission of Human Rights is appropriate and well founded.
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.
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:

Es procedente y fundada la presente acción de inconstitucionalidad promovida por la Comisión Nacional de los Derechos Humanos.
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.
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.

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: Outdated HIV criminalisation bills are currently being considered in seven US States

A Look At HIV Criminalization Bills Across The Country

By Hope Jackson

As state legislative sessions get underway across the country, HRC and equality partners are tracking seven HIV criminalization measures that threaten the lives of those living with HIV & AIDS, LGBTQ Americans and their families. Despite advances in medicine that can prevent the transmission of HIV or treat those exposed to the virus, unconscionable HIV criminalization bills are currently being considered in Georgia, Kentucky, Arizona, New York, West Virginia and Oklahoma. According to HRC’s 2017 State Equality Index, 25 states currently have laws that criminalize behaviors that carry a low or negligible risk of HIV transmission.

HIV criminalization legislation does not work in the context of modern scientific developments. There is no evidence to suggest HIV criminalization helps to lower HIV transmission rates.

Georgia’s HB 737 would force individuals to submit to court ordered blood tests where a law enforcement officer alleges to have been exposed to blood or other bodily fluids that could result in HIV, Hepatitis B or Hepatitis C. The bill passed committee on February 5th. Kentucky’s HB 193 reached the House for consideration on February 16 and could be voted on any day now. As introduced, the Kentucky bill would criminalize the common cold as the definition of “communicable disease” would include diseases that are unlikely to cause lasting harm, much less harm warranting felony punishment. In the face of affirmative votes to push the bill to the House floor, a number of legislators took issue with the dangerously broad language that would punish the mere passing of the flu or common cold. This hearing revealed that HIV education is still needed in both the legislature and in the community.

The very nature of the HIV & AIDS epidemic means that the enforcement of these laws will target specific, vulnerable populations. These laws target transgender Americans as 1.4 percent of transgender individuals report living with HIV, compared with 0.3 percent of the general population who report living with HIV. Furthermore, a 2015 Williams Institute report found that prior to California’s HIV modernization bill, every incident where there was an HIV-specific charge led to a conviction and 90 percent of those convictions led to immediate confinement. The report showed that white men were “significantly more likely to be released and not charged (16 percent)” and “black men (38 percent), black women (44 percent), and white women (39 percent) were significantly less likely to be released and not charged.”

Understanding the science behind HIV underscores just how ineffective these bills are in 2018. HIV can only be transmitted by blood, pre-seminal fluid, semen, vaginal fluid, breast milk or rectal fluids. Saliva, feces, urine and other secretions alone do not transmit HIV. Moreover, those who adhere to HIV treatment can expect to live long and healthy lives. Over the last 35 years, the medical community has made significant advancement in the treatment and prevention of HIV & AIDS. An individual may take Truvada, also called pre-exposure prophylaxis or PrEP, once a day to prevent contracting HIV before exposure. Lastly, for some people who know they are living with HIV, there is the possibility that the transfer of the virus to another person would be nearly zero because the undetectable viral load of HIV makes the virus untransmittable. HIV criminalization ignores these developments and perpetuates stigma.

HRC and HRC Foundation are committed to working to end the criminalization of HIV & AIDS.

Published on Human Rights Campaign Blog on February 26, 2018

Lawyers for HIV and TB Justice 2018 Training (Johannesburg, 2018)

This playlist contains recordings of a training for lawyers on strategic litigation, legal defense and advocacy on HIV and TB justice from 20-23 February 2018 in Johannesburg, South Africa by the Southern Africa Litigation Centre (SALC), HIV Justice Worldwide, the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS), the Stop TB Partnership, the AIDS and Rights Alliance for Southern Africa (ARASA), and the Kenya Legal & Ethical Issues Network on HIV and AIDS (KELIN). The training was funded under the Africa Regional Grant on HIV: Removing Legal Barriers. Resources and more information on the training are available here: http://www.southernafricalitigationce… With thanks to Nicholas Feustel of Georgetown Media.

US: Kentucky bill making it a felony to expose police officers to bodily fluids goes to full House for consideration after being approved by House Committee

KENTUCKY (2/15/18) — A bill that would make it a felony to intentionally expose a law enforcement officer to bodily fluids or bodily waste was approved yesterday by the House Judiciary Committee.

Kentucky jailers and some other officials are protected against someone intentionally causing them to come into contact with bodily fluids and waste, but that “there’s a gap in the law that doesn’t protect our police officers,” said Rep. Stan Lee, R-Lexington, the sponsor of House Bill 193.

The legislation would carry stiffer penalties if the bodily fluids or waste carry—or could carry—a communicable disease, including hepatitis C virus or HIV. Both crimes would be considered felony assault under the proposal.

Fraternal Order of Police Bluegrass Lodge # 4 President Jason Rothermund told the committee creating a crime for intentionally forcing bodily fluids or waste onto a police or other law enforcement officer, with the increased penalty for communicable disease, will help prosecution of such acts. Current statutes for disorderly conduct and wanton endangerment are not adequate for prosecution, he said.

“We don’t want them (the officers) to have to go find some obscure charge,” said Rothermund, but instead want behavior specifically addressed in law.

Lee said he would be willing to consider floor amendments that would ratchet down some of the bill’s penalties to misdemeanors after some lawmakers, including Rep. Jason Nemes, R-Louisville, expressed concern with the felony provisions.

Nemes, who has a brother who is a peace officer, said he believes more protection is needed but that he believes the penalties proposed in HB 193 are too harsh.

Rep. McKenzie Cantrell, D-Louisville, had concerns that the scope of the bill is wider than it needs to be.

“Because there’s not a definition of what a communicable disease is and there’s no nexus between the exposure to the fluids and actual transmission of the disease, I’m going to have to vote no today,” she said.

Among those voting for the bill was Rep. Robert Benvenuti, R-Lexington, who said the risk of transmitting communicable disease through bodily fluids and waste is real and carries consequences.

“Clearly there should be a consequence to putting that officer in harm’s way and making that officer go through a battery of testing and unknown situations with their spouse, etc.,” he said.

HB 193 now goes to the full House for consideration.

Published in SurfKY News on February 15, 2018

Zimbabwe: Country's laws on deliberate transmission are too broad and should be reviewed

PREGNANT HIV-positive mothers who do not take precaution to prevent transmission of the virus to their unborn babies are liable for prosecution and face up to 20 years in prison under the country’s laws, a lawyer has noted.

Anyone living with the virus who has sexual intercourse with an HIV-negative partner using protection without disclosing their status may also be legally liable, even when transmission has not occurred, Mr Lizwe Jamela of the Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights (ZLHR) said.

In an interview on the sidelines of the just-ended International Conference of Aids and STIs in Africa (Icasa) in Abidjan, Ivory Coast Mr Jamela, who heads ZLHR in Matabeleland and Midlands provinces said the country’s laws on deliberate transmission of HIV were too broad and should be reviewed.

He said the broadness of the laws made almost everyone who is sexually active liable for prosecution, and thus called for the repealing of the legislation.

Under section 79 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act chapter 9:23 deliberate transmission of HIV is a criminal offence which attracts a sentence of not more than 20 years.

“On the face of it the law talks about deliberate transmission of HIV but when you analyse it further you observe that almost everyone can face prosecution,” he said.

Section 79 (b) states that “Any person, realising that there is a real risk or possibility that he or she is infected with HIV; intentionally does anything or permits the doing of anything which he or she knows will infect, which he or she realises involves a real risk or possibility of infecting another person with HIV, shall be guilty of deliberate transmission of HIV, whether or not he or she is married to that other person, and shall be liable to imprisonment for a period not exceeding twenty years”.

Mr Jamela said, “Anyone can fall into that category. There is just too much conjecture in that law.

“If a pregnant woman who is HIV-positive fails to undergo the Prevention of Mother to Child Transmission (PMTCT) programme she is liable for prosecution.

“Anyone who is HIV positive who has intercourse with someone who is negative and uses protection can still be prosecuted under this law because that person would have done something which involves a real risk of possibility of infecting another person with HIV.

“The fact that one used protection can only be used as mitigation but not to absolve anyone.”

He added, “So under this law, the criminal offence is not only about deliberate transmission but even exposure to risk of transmission, which in my view is very wide and broad.”

Mr Jamela said the law should either be amended to deal specifically with cases of deliberate transmission or be totally repealed.

“We don’t need a law that criminalises HIV. Instead we should be reinforcing the human rights response to HIV intervention by increasing issues of education and advocacy.

“We could limit the law to genuine cases of deliberate transmission,” he said.

Mr Jamela further argued that it was also humanly impossible to prove in a court of law who would have infected who between complainant and defendant in cases of deliberate transmission of HIV.

“Judiciary can’t deal with who infected who. There is no technology to generate evidence to prove that. So in most cases the person who would report first becomes the complainant. But what if the complainant is the one who infected defendant, how do you prove that?

“For a criminal conviction to happen someone should be guilty beyond reasonable doubt, but we have people being convicted of deliberate infection when that threshold has not been passed,” he said.

Head of the HIV and TB unit in the Ministry of Health and Child Care Dr Owen Mugurungi described the enactment of the law as “a moment of madness”.

He said the law was counterproductive in the fight against stigma around HIV.

“It was a moment of madness. This is what happens when decisions are made based on emotions.

“The law attacks the basic rights of people living with HIV. It’s counter-productive to our interventions and defeats everything we are trying to do to fight the virus.

“That law causes people to go underground, it scares away people from getting tested because it stigmatises HIV,” he said.

Dr Mugurungi added that there was engagement between the National Aids Council and legislators to look into possible ways of repealing or amending the law so that it does not criminalise HIV.

Zimbabwe Network of People Living with HIV (ZNPP+) national chairperson Sebastian Chinhaire said the law countered the country’s efforts to end Aids by 2030 and should be done away with immediately.

“We should do away with that law. We will not end Aids by 2030 if we still have that law. All the gains recorded in the fight against HIV are being reversed by this law. It should go,” he said.

Published in Bulawayo 24 on Dec 17, 2017

Malawi: Human Rights Activists celebrate adoption of amended HIV Law that removes rights-infringing provisions (Press Release)

PRESS RELEASE 28 November 2017

HUMAN RIGHTS ACTIVISTS CELEBRATE MALAWI’S ADOPTION OF AMENDED HIV LAW THAT REMOVES RIGHTS-INFRINGING PROVISIONS

Lilongwe – On Tuesday, 28 November, Malawi Members of Parliament voted to reject coercive and criminalising provisions that threatened human rights in a long-deliberated HIV (Prevention and Management) Bill.

Activists and people living with and affected by HIV celebrated outside Parliament after having protested for months against rights-infringing provisions in the HIV Bill, tabled earlier this year. The Bill, which had its origins in a 2008 Law Commission Report, included provisions to make HIV testing and treatment mandatory for select populations on a discriminatory basis, and provisions that would criminalise HIV exposure and transmission, amongst others.

Civil society and activists argued that these provisions would violate the Malawi Constitution, be at odds with international best practice, and compromise the country’s efforts to advance HIV treatment and prevention.

On Tuesday, Members of Parliament debated amendments to the Bill advanced by Members and its HIV Committee. Minister of Health, Hon. Atupele Muluzi, urged Members to endorse these amendments when adopting the Bill, emphasizing that criminalising HIV had negative public health implications. Parliament voted to support all the amendments proposed by the HIV Committee and, in addition, voted to delete a contentious provision relating to “deliberate infection” with HIV. After a second reading, the Bill was passed subject to these amendments.

Activists celebrate the passing of the amended HIV/AIDS Bill today in Lilongwe. — Activists celebrate the passing of the amended HIV Bill today in Lilongwe. (Source SALC)

“It is thanks to women activists who fought to have their voices heard that Parliament has recognised that abandoning human rights protections will only drive vulnerability to HIV,” said Sarai-Chisala Tempelhoff of the Women Lawyers Association (WLA Malawi). “When the evidence tells us women and girls should be at the forefront of our response to HIV, it is important to understand the criminalisation would only increase the risk of violence and abuse that Malawian women face; strengthen prevailing gendered inequalities in healthcare and family settings; and further drive stigma, fear and discrimination around HIV.”

“Mandatory testing and treatment and criminalization of HIV transmission and exposure are counter-productive to reaching the goals of the HIV response in Malawi. We are glad our voices have been heard through the work of organisations like ICW Malawi, the Coalition of Women Living with HIV/AIDS (COWLHA), the Female Sex Workers Association, the Women Farmers Coalition and others. Human rights have prevailed today in Malawi.” said Clara Banya of the International Community of Women Living with HIV (ICW) Malawi.

“We are elated that Parliament has chosen to endorse a law based on evidence and reason and not on stigma and fear. It is people who are most marginalized in our society who would suffer most under coercive and criminalising laws – these are people who need society’s support, not punishment.” said Victor Mhango, Executive Director of the Centre for Human Rights Education, Advice and Assistance (CHREAA).

Gift Trapence, Executive Director of the Centre for the Development of People (CEDEP), agreed, “While we urgently need to embrace key populations to advance human rights and the HIV response in Malawi, the Bill was proposing to create further barriers. While the amended version adopted by Parliament does not speak to key populations directly, we must celebrate that at least it hasn’t added to the legal barriers as initially proposed.”

MacDonald Sembereka, Executive Director of the Mango Key Populations Network said, “As actors in the sector we urge for the prompt assent and implementation of the Act as it is long overdue.”

“We commend and support the incredible advocacy of Malawian civil society and women activists in particular who have refused to be silenced into accepting compromises on punitive laws and policies,” said Michaela Clayton, Director of the AIDS and Rights Alliance for Southern Africa (ARASA). “The role of human rights in an effective HIV response is as important now as it has always been.”

“While some provisions remain that are perplexing and of which we should remain wary (such as those placing duties on people living with HIV to adhere to treatment), Parliament’s acceptance of the amendments in the Act is a victory for citizens and supporters of human rights in Malawi who resisted efforts to enact the Bill in its original form at all costs,” said Annabel Raw, health rights lawyer at the Southern Africa Litigation Centre (SALC).

Laurel Sprague, Executive Director of Global Network of People Living with HIV (GNP+) said, “GNP+ applauds the remarkable community effort that focused on education, current science and best practices. Women living with HIV, sex workers, and women lawyers led the way in explaining why punitive laws harm the HIV response and ensuring that a human rights approach is at the centre of Malawi’s HIV response.”

Statement by:

The AIDS and Rights Alliance for Southern Africa (ARASA)

The Centre for the Development of People (CEDEP)

The Centre for Human Rights Education, Advice and Assistance (CHREAA)

The Global Network of People Living with HIV (GNP+)

The International Community of Women Living with HIV (ICW) Malawi

The MANGO Key Populations Network

The Southern Africa Litigation Centre (SALC)

Women Lawyers Association, Malawi

ENDS

FOR MORE INFORMATION:

Lesley Odendal (Communications Lead, AIDS and Rights Alliance for Southern Africa) Email: communications@arasa.info; Tel: + 27 72 960 8991.

Annabel Raw (Health Rights Lawyer, Southern Africa Litigation Centre) Email: AnnabelR@salc.org.za; Tel: +27 10 596 8538.

UK: Professor Matthew Weait reflects on the first convictions for intentional HIV transmission in England & Wales

Daryll Rowe guilty – but is criminal law the right way to stop the spread of HIV?

Daryll Rowe infected five male sexual partners with HIV, and tried unsuccessfully to infect a further five. Yesterday, he was convicted in the Crown Court at Lewes on ten counts of causing, and attempting to cause, grievous bodily harm. He will be sentenced in January.

This is the first case in the UK in which a person has been convicted of intentionally harming, or attempting to harm, others with HIV – prior to this, all UK convictions have been for reckless transmission. It is a uniquely harrowing and distressing case, and the impact of Rowe’s actions on the complainants cannot be underestimated.

Unsurprisingly, the trial has provoked much media comment, and his behaviour widespread condemnation – the details of Rowe’s actions, after all, are particularly shocking.

But whatever judgement we might pass on Rowe’s behaviour from a moral or ethical perspective, the criminalisation of HIV transmission and exposure more generally raises a number of important questions, not least regarding its impact on HIV-related stigma and efforts to reduce, and ultimately eradicate, the virus.

Ever since its discovery as the causative agent of AIDS in 1983, countries across the world have used the criminal law, both to censure those who have exposed others to the risk of infection or have in fact infected others, to control the spread of the virus.

The first of these rationales, a retributive one, reflected the fact that, until the mid-1990s, HIV was untreatable and almost inevitably led to death. It is therefore not surprising that states should have treated HIV as a weapon, and its effects as serious bodily harm.

The second rationale, a deterrent one, assumes that punishment will deter the accused – and others – from engaging in risky activity. It therefore has a supposed legitimacy from a public health perspective.

Both of these justifications are problematic.

The false path

Regarding retribution, criminal law requires that the defendant manifest a high degree of fault at the time – typically, that he acted intentionally, as Rowe did, or recklessly. As to intention, this can be established in English law and many other jurisdictions if (a) it is proven that it was the defendant’s purpose to infect, or (b) it may (but need not) be inferred if infection was virtually certain to occur, and the defendant foresaw that consequence as virtually certain.

Proving purposive intention is extremely difficult – a deliberate intention to engage in sexual activity which carries with it the risk of onward transmission is not the same as intending to transmit. It is also very difficult, in the case of HIV, to establish intention in the alternative way because, as has been confirmed in a number of clinical consensus statements, from Canada, Australia, and Sweden, the probability of transmission in any one incident of sexual intercourse is extremely low.

What’s more, where a deliberate (but unsuccessful) attempt to transmit HIV during sex is prosecuted, is it legitimate to punish someone for failing to achieve a consequence which is, statistically speaking, extremely unlikely to materialise? Critically, in the case of HIV, the accused is unable, as a matter of fact, to exercise agency over the outcome. (There is arguably a difference between swinging a bat at someone’s knee and missing, and having sex during which a virus may, but on any one occasion probably won’t, infect a partner.)

Recklessness (the conscious taking of an unjustifiable risk), however, is a lesser form of culpability. It is easier to prove, and a far more common basis for criminalisation. Until now, reckless transmission has been the basis for all UK convictions.

Rowe was found guilty of intentionally harming, or attempting to harm, others with HIV. But criminalising reckless transmission is particularly problematic. From a retributive perspective, this amounts to punishing people living with HIV who have sex during which HIV is transmitted, not because they had any desire that this should happen but because they were aware that it might. This places the entire burden of minimising the risk on them (even in cases where a partner is in fact aware of the risks), and is even more problematic where reckless exposure (as opposed to transmission) is criminalised.

This is not just because no physical harm has been caused, but because there is an absence of clarity as to what degree of risk is acceptable. In Canada, for example, there needs to be a “significant risk”, though what this means is contentious. It is now widely accepted that when a person diagnosed with HIV is on effective treatment and has an undetectable viral load, transmission is all but impossible. In the words of a current, high-profile, campaign to encourage testing and treatment, Undetectable = Untransmittable, or U=U.

A deterrent?

Criminalisation can also create obstacles to delivering beneficial public health outcomes.

First, because a person living with HIV can only be convicted for transmission, attempt, or exposure if he knew his HIV positive status at the relevant time, those who are in fact positive but don’t know can’t, by definition, be deterred by the prospect of punishment.

Second, and critically, criminalisation contributes to the stigma associated with HIV infection. Sensationalist press coverage, focusing on exceptional “newsworthy” cases, does little if anything to normalise HIV infection or to inform the general public about the fact that the vast majority of people living with HIV take every precaution against putting partners at risk. Instead, it fuels ignorance and misunderstanding.

Indeed, the print media in the UK and elsewhere has a long tradition of sensationalising HIV transmission and exposure cases, often at the expense of accurate reporting – whether about the trials themselves, or about the characteristics of those convicted.

This may make people wary of disclosing their status to partners, adhering to treatment, or getting tested in the first place.

Indeed, there is now near universal consensus among expert bodies, including UNAIDS and the Global Commission on HIV and the Law, that the use of the criminal law, where it is used at all, should be limited to the most egregious of cases and that exposure and reckless transmission should be decriminalised. Where states do use criminal law against those who deliberately and maliciously harm others, the highest standards of forensic evidence should be deployed.

Any moral judgement we pass on defendants in particular cases (who, it is worth remembering, were themselves infected by someone else) should not deflect attention from what must be our main priority: the total eradication of HIV.

We know definitively that regular testing and early treatment can significantly reduce the number of new infections, and we know that stigma, fuelled by criminalisation and press coverage, impedes this.

Rowe’s behaviour was found to be criminal. But we should reflect on whether criminal law – in general – does more harm than good, and ensure wherever, and whenever, possible that HIV is understood and treated as a public health priority rather than as an opportunity for blame and punishment.

Mexico: The Network against the Criminalisation of HIV report that 30 out of 32 states criminalise "exposure to infection" in Mexico

In Mexico 30 states criminalize HIV as “a crime of exposure to infection” (Google translation. For article in Spanish, please scroll down)

The Network against the Criminalisation of HIV, a coalition formed by 29 associations in favour of human rights in Mexico, reported that 30 of the 32 states that make up the Mexican Republic include in their Penal Codes the category “Crime of exposure to infection”, which punishes people who transmit or can transmit a “non-curable disease” to another person.

“The aim of the network is not to start a witch hunt, because it was surprising that in the last two years this law has been discussed in three different state congresses,” he explained to Leonardo Bastida, member of the association, Letra S.

According to the organisations, this legal statute endangers people with HIV, as it criminalizes and undermines strategies aimed at combating the epidemic. Specifically, laws sanction the possibility of transmitting an illness, even if it happens involuntarily.

According to Bastida, since the year 200 have registered 39 criminal proceedings for this cause, of which 15 are located in Veracruz, nine in Sonora, five in Tamaulipas, five more in the State of Mexico, three in Chihuahua, one in Mexico City and one more in Nuevo León.

According to the activists, these criminalizing laws emerged in the first half of the 20th century and focused mainly on penalizing the “contagion” of syphilis, but over the years they were modified and included various diseases.

Only Aguascalientes and San Luis Potosí do not have this legalstatute in their penal codes, while in Sonora the law could be toughened, since there is currently a proposal that is being analyzed to establish sentences of up to 15 years in prison. Activists and the State Human Rights Commission seek to repeal Article 113 of the Criminal Code, which includes this criminal category.

The network detailed that in the case of Veracruz, legislators approved in 2015 an amendment to the local penal code to add to the “crime of contagion” the term “sexually transmitted infections. In addition, with the amendment of article 158, sentences of 6 months to 5 years in prison were established.

Faced with this situation, a group of social organizations presented an appeal of unconstitutionality to the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation. The activists trust that the SCJN will rule in favor of the lawsuit.

Members of the Network against Criminalization warned that these types of laws do not help to combat the increase in HIV cases and only contribute to stigmatization and make it difficult for strategies focused on combating HIV transmission to meet their goals.

With information from EFE.

—————————————————-

En México 30 estados criminalizan el VIH como “delito de peligro de contagio”

La Red contra la Criminalización del VIH, una coalición conformada por 29 asociaciones a favor de los derechos humanos en México, informaron que 30 de los 32 estados que conforman la república mexicana contemplan en sus Códigos Penales la categoría “Delito de peligro de contagio”, la cual castiga a las personas que transmitan o puedan transmitir una “enfermedad no curable” a otra persona.

“El objetivo de la red es que no empiece una cacería de brujas, porque fue sorprendente que en los últimos dos años se haya discutido en tres congresos estatales diferentes esta ley”, explicó a Leonardo Bastida, integrante de la asociación, Letra S.

De acuerdo con las organizaciones, dicha figura penal pone en peligro a las personas con VIH, ya que las criminaliza y resta fuerza a las estrategias enfocadas a combatir la epidemia. Específicamente, las leyes sancionan la posibilidad de transmitir alguna enfermedad, aunque suceda de forma involuntaria.

De acuerdo con Bastida, desde el año 200 se han registrado 39 procesos penales por esta causa, de los cuales 15 se ubican en Veracruz, nueve en Sonora, cinco en Tamaulipas, cinco más en el Estado de México, tres en Chihuahua, uno en la Ciudad de México y uno más en Nuevo León.

Según explicaron los activistas, estas leyes criminalizadoras surgieron en la primera mitad del siglo XX y se enfocaban principalmente a penalizar el “contagio” de la sífilis, pero con el pasar de los años se fueron modificando e incluyeron diversas enfermedades.

Sólo Aguascalientes y San Luis Potosí no cuentan con esta figura en sus códigos penales, mientras que en Sonora se podría endurecer la ley, ya que actualmente existe una propuesta que está siendo analizada para establecer penas con hasta 15 años de prisión. Los activistas y la Comisión de Derechos Humanos del Estado buscan derogar el artículo 113 del Código Penal, el cual incluye esta categoría penal.

La red detalló que en el caso de Veracruz, los legisladores aprobaron en 2015 modificar el código penal local para agregar al “delito del contagio” el término “infecciones de transmisión sexual. Además con la modificación del artículo 158 se establecieron penas de 6 meses a 5 años de cárcel.

Ante este panorama, un grupo de organizaciones sociales presentaron un recurso de inconstitucionalidad a la Suprema Corte de Justicia de la Nación. Los activistas confían en que la SCJN falle a favor de la demanda.

Los integrantes de la Red contra la Criminalización alertaron que este tipo de leyes no ayudan a combatir el aumento de casos de VIH y sólo contribuyen a la estigmatización y dificultan que las estrategias enfocadas a combatir la transmisión del VIH cumplan sus metas.

Con información de EFE.