At SADC-PF parliamentarians meeting in South Africa, Patrick Eba of UNAIDS says HIV criminalization is a setback to regional AIDS efforts

The criminalisation of HIV simply undermines the remarkable global scientific advances and proven public health strategies that could open the path to vanquishing AIDS by 2030, Patrick Eba from the human rights and law division of UNAIDS told SADC-PF parliamentarians meeting in South Africa.

Restating a remark made by Justice Edwin Cameron of the Constitutional Court of South Africa, Eba said: “HIV criminalisation makes it more difficult for those at risk of HIV to access testing and prevention. There is simply no evidence that it works. It undermines the remarkable scientific advances and proven public health strategies that open the path to vanquishing AIDS by 2030.”

SADC-PF has undertaken, as part of its commitment to advocacy for sexual reproductive health rights, an ambitious 90-90-90 initiative in east and southern Africa, with the help of the media, to ensure that all people living with HIV should know their status by 2020; that by 2020 90 percent of all people diagonised with HIV will receive sustained antiretroviral therapy; and that by 2020 90 percent of all people living with HIV and receiving antiretroviral therapy will have viral suppression.

He implored parliamentarians from SADC-PF member states to advocate for laws that would decriminalise HIV after he noted several African countries had HIV-specific criminal laws that resulted in arrests and prosecutions of those convicted of spreading HIV intentionally.

Eba said calls for the criminalisation of intentional or wilful spreading of HIV stem from the fact there are high rates of rape and sexual violence, and most notably in post-conflict countries such as the DRC there exist promises of retribution, incapacitation, deterrence and rehabilitation.

He gave an example of one case of miscarriage of justice involving a woman in Gabon who was wrongfully arrested after a man accused her of having infected him with HIV, but after spending several months in detention she was actually found to be HIV-negative after she went for testing.

Eba appealed to SADC-PF parliamentarians to consider decriminalisation of HIV on the basis that antiretroviral treatment (ART) has a 96 percent rate in reducing the risk of HIV transmission.

“End criminalisation to end AIDS,” he implored SADC-PF parliamentarians who included Agnes Limbo of the RDP, Ida Hoffmann of Swapo and Ignatius Shixwameni of APP, all delegated by Namibia to the conference.

Eba also referred to the motion unanimously adopted in November 2015 that was moved by Duma Boko of Botswana and that was seconded by Ahmed Shaik Imam of South Africa who reaffirmed SADC member states’ obligation to respect, fulfil and promote human rights in all endevours undertaken for the prevention and treatment of HIV.

That motion had also called on SADC member states to consider rescinding and reviewing punitive laws specific to the prosecution of HIV transmission, exposure and non-disclosure. It also reiterated the role by parliamentarians to enact laws that support evidence-based HIV prevention and treatment interventions that conform with regional and international human rights frameworks.

Eba said since HIV infection is now a chronic treatable health condition, no charges of “murder” or “manslaughter” should arise and that HIV non-disclosure and exposure should not be criminalised in the absence of transmission, and that significant risk of transmission should be based on best available scientific and medical evidence.

On the other hand, he said, there is no significant risk in cases of consistent condom use practice or other forms of safer sex and effective HIV treatment.

The SADC-PF joint sessions also addressed the issues of criminalisation of termination of pregnancy. The joint sessions ended on Thursday with a raft of recommendations for the ministerial meetings.

Originally published in New Era.

Bangladesh: Communicable Disease Prevention, Control and Elimination Act, 2016 which includes jail time and a fine for not being screened and/or treated for many communicable diseases, including HIV, is approved by cabinet

The cabinet yesterday approved a proposed law aiming at preventing and controlling communicable diseases in the country.

The proposed law titled Communicable Disease Prevention, Control and Elimination Act, 2016 has a provision of jail term and fine for a person who is affected with such a disease but does not undergo medical tests for detection.

Briefing reporters after a cabinet meeting at the Secretariat, Cabinet Secretary M Shafiul Alam said the affected persons concerned would also have to be examined in related and specified institutes to detect the types of their diseases.

If a patient avoids medical tests to detect presence of diseases considered as transmittable, they would face one-year imprisonment or Tk 2 lakh fine, he added.

Alam said one of the goals of the draft law is to protect people from communicable diseases as well as taking proper measures to create mass awareness about germs related diseases like Kala-Azar, HIV, Influenza, Nipah, Ebola and Typhoid.

Under the proposed law, a patient or the affected persons would have to be screened and isolated to protect common people from being affected, he observed.

Experts have termed the proposed law a “landmark and a milestone.”

“It’s a landmark decision of the government. With enactment of the law, Bangladesh’s health sector will move one step forward,” said Prof Dr AKM Shamsuzzaman, director of Communicable Disease Control of the Directorate General of Health Services (DGHS).

He told The Daily Star that communicable diseases would be eliminated more quickly with the implementation of the law.

Communicable diseases like malaria, dengue, Filariasis, Kala-azar, all types of influenza, Nipah, HIV, viral hepatitis, among others, would be brought under the legal framework of the law, he added.

Prof Shamsuzzaman further said, “We used to face difficulties in dealing with diseases which appear suddenly on any part of the country. With the enactment of the law, the health department will be able to involve other government bodies concerned including the law-enforcement agencies for controlling such outbreaks.”

Emerging threats of diseases like Zika and communicable diseases which transmit frequently on bordering areas would be dealt under legal framework, he said, thanking the government for approving the proposed law.

The health ministry moved to enact the law in 2014 but couldn’t do so due to various bureaucratic tangles, according to insiders.

The draft law was prepared in line with and replacing the Bangladesh Malaria Eradication (Repeal) Ordinance, 1977 and the Prevention of Malaria (Special Provisions) Ordinance, they said.

As per the proposed law, the authorities concerned will create quarantine facilities for affected persons. The law also creates a scope for the government to take all kinds of assistance from other countries to prevent communicable diseases.

New report shows HIV criminalisation is a growing, global concern but advocates are fighting back

A new report released today shows that HIV criminalisation is a growing, global phenomenon. However, advocates around the world are working hard to ensure that the criminal law’s approach to people living with HIV fits with up-to-date science, as well as key legal and human rights principles.

Click on this link to read or download Advancing HIV Justice 2: Building momentum in global advocacy against HIV criminalisation.

What do we mean by ‘HIV criminalisation’?

HIV criminalisation describes the unjust application of the criminal law to people living with HIV based solely on their HIV status – either via HIV-specific criminal statutes, or by applying general criminal laws that allow for prosecution of unintentional HIV transmission, potential or perceived exposure to HIV where HIV was not transmitted, and/or non-disclosure of known HIV-positive status.

Such unjust application of the criminal law in relation to HIV is (i) not guided by the best available scientific and medical evidence relating to HIV, (ii) fails to uphold the principles of legal and judicial fairness (including key criminal law principles of legality, foreseeability, intent, causality, proportionality and proof), and (iii) infringes upon the human rights of those involved in criminal law cases.

What is the impact of HIV criminalisation?

Understanding the potential negative impact of HIV criminalisation on public health is critical to making informed policy decisions.

The last few years have seen increasing interest among researchers in the area of HIV criminalisation and a push into new areas of enquiry to examine the impacts of the unjust application of criminal law.

The report summarises a body of research which shows that instead of delivering a public health benefit, HIV criminalisation is a poor public health strategy, exacerbating racial and gender inequalities and negatively impacting a number of key areas including: testing; disclosure; sexual behaviour; and healthcare practice.

How many countries around the world have HIV criminalisation laws?

Since our last report, we found an increase in the number of countries that specifically allow for HIV criminalisation: these could be stand-alone HIV-specific criminal laws, part of omnibus HIV laws, or criminal and/or public health laws that specifically mention HIV.

Some of this increase is due to laws enacted since 2013 in Botswana, Cote d’lvoire, Nigeria, Uganda and Veracruz state (Mexico), and some is due to improved reporting and research methodology.

Our analysis shows that a total of 72 countries have adopted laws that specifically allow for HIV criminalisation, either because the law is HIV-specific, or because it names HIV as one (or more) of the diseases covered by the law. This total increases to 101 jurisdictions when the HIV criminalisation laws in 30 of the states that make up the United States are counted individually.

AHJ2-Where HIV criminalisation laws exist (as of April 2016)_6

How many countries have prosecuted people living with HIV?

Prosecutions for HIV non-disclosure, potential or perceived exposure and/or unintentional transmission have now been reported in 61 countries. This total increases to 105 jurisdictions when individual US states and Australian states / territories are counted separately.

Of the 61 countries, 26 applied HIV criminalisation laws, 32 applied general criminal or public health laws, and three (Australia, Denmark and United States) applied both HIV criminalisation and general laws.

AHJ2-Where HIV criminalisation laws exist (as of April 2016)_7

Where have prosecutions recently taken place?

We found reports of at least 313 arrests, prosecutions and/or convictions in 28 countries during the report period, covering 1 April 2013 to 30 September 2015.

Of note, we are now able to include data on reported prosecutions in Belarus and Russia, which are likely to have been taking place at least since the enactment of a Belarusian public health law in 1993 and a Russian HIV criminalisation law in 1995.

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

• Russia (at least 115) • United States (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) • Germany (at least 5).

AHJ2-Where HIV criminalisation laws exist (as of April 2016)_8

HIV criminalisation in sub-Sarahan Africa of increasing concern

Where there was no HIV criminalisation at the start of the 21st century, 30 sub-Saharan African countries have now enacted overly broad and/or vague HIV-specific criminal statutes.

Most of these statutes are part of omnibus HIV-specific laws that also include protective provisions, such as those relating to non-discrimination in employment, health and housing. However, they also include a number of problematic provisions such as compulsory HIV testing and involuntary partner notification, as well as HIV criminalisation.

During the period covered by this report four countries in sub-Saharan Africa passed new HIV criminalisation laws: Botswana, Cote d’lvoire, Nigeria and Uganda.

Very few countries in Africa are now unaffected by problematic HIV criminalisation laws. The rise of reported prosecutions in Africa during this period (in Botswana, South Africa, Uganda, and especially Zimbabwe), along with the continuing, growing number of HIV criminalisation laws on this continent, is especially alarming.

AHJ2-Where HIV criminalisation laws exist (as of April 2016)_9

Where has advocacy improved legal environments?

Important and promising developments in case law, law reform and policy have taken place in many jurisdictions, most of which came about as a direct result of advocacy.

During the report period, although an additional 13 jurisdictions in nine countries proposed new HIV criminalisation laws, seven of these were not passed, primarily due to swift and effective advocacy against them at an early stage. Advocacy in another ten jurisdictions in seven countries challenged, improved or repealed HIV criminalisation laws.

The legal environment relating to HIV criminalisation has improved in a small number of countries in sub-Saharan Africa, most notably in Kenya. On 18 March 2015, Kenya’s High Court ruled that its HIV criminalisation provision – Section 24 of the HIV Prevention and Control Act 2006 – was unconstitutional because it was vague, overbroad and lacking in legal certainty, particularly in respect to the term ‘sexual contact’.

The Court also found it contravened Article 31 of the Kenyan Constitution which guarantees the right to privacy because the law created an obligation for people with HIV to disclose their status to their ‘sexual contacts’, with no corresponding obligation for recipients of such sensitive medical information to keep it confidential.

AHJ2-Where HIV criminalisation laws exist (as of April 2016)_10

Using science as an advocacy tool

Increased knowledge about reduced infectiousness due to antiretroviral therapy has led to advocacy that resulted in a number of jurisdictions revising or revisiting their criminal laws or prosecutorial policies relating to HIV criminalisation, although progress has been frustratingly slow.

Following the ‘Swiss statement’, published in January 2008, a growing number of courts, government ministries and prosecutorial authorities have accepted antiretroviral therapy’s impact on reducing the risk of both HIV exposure and transmission.

However, scientific advances alone will neither ‘end AIDS’ nor end HIV criminalisation. Although the impact of antiretroviral therapy on infectiousness is an important advocacy tool, it must be remembered that many people with HIV do not have access to treatment (or are unable to achieve an undetectable viral load when on treatment) and that everyone has a right to choose not to know their status and/or start treatment and should not be stigmatised nor considered ‘second class citizens’ should they wish to delay diagnosis or antiretroviral therapy.

More work required

Despite the many incremental successes of the past few years, much more work is required to strengthen advocacy capacity. This is why a coalition of seven organisations launched HIV Justice Worldwide in April 2016.

We also need to be aware that HIV criminalisation does not exist in vacuum, and is often linked to punitive laws and policies that impact sexual and reproductive health and rights, especially those aimed at sex workers and/or men who have sex with men and other sexual minorities.

And, bearing in mind the stigma faced by those with, for example, hepatitis C and concerns over the sexual transmission of the Ebola and Zika viruses, as we move forward to eliminate – or modernise – HIV criminalisation laws, we must ensure that our work does not inadvertently lead to the further criminalisation of other communicable and/or sexually transmitted infections.

Click on this link to read or download Advancing HIV Justice 2: Building momentum in global advocacy against HIV criminalisation.

A note about the limitations of the data

The data and case analyses in this report covers a 30-month period, 1 April 2013 to 30 September 2015. This begins where the original Advancing HIV Justice report – which covered the 18-month period, 1 September 2011 to 31 March 2013 – left off. Our data should be seen as an illustration of what may be a more widespread, but generally undocumented, use of the criminal law against people with HIV.

Australia: Southern Australia new legislation to soon enforce mandatory blood testing of offenders for spitting at, or biting police officers

MORE than 100 police officers are being spat at each year, exposing them to infectious diseases and raising the concerns of their union.

Police figures show 111 officers were spat at in 2013 and that total has remained steady each year since, although they refused to release new figures.

South Australian Police Association president Mark Carroll said he hoped new legislation, which is expected to soon become law, enforcing mandatory blood testing of offenders who assault police would protect his members.

“When, in the course of duty, officers are spat on, bitten or otherwise assaulted in a way involving an exchange of bodily fluids, it’s essential that these officers have access to blood samples from the assailant that can be tested,” he said.

The comments come after the sentencing of Brandon William Peter Humes who spat on an officer during an arrest him and told him ‘I don’t give a f — k … I have HIV AIDS and now you’ve got it too’.

In sentencing Humes, 27, this month District Court Judge Rauf Soulio said the officer had to restrain Humes which left him unable to immediately “decontaminate himself”.

“Your comments about HIV caused him great distress,” Judge Soulio said.

“He felt unable to hold his infant daughter, who was born prematurely, for fear of passing on a communicable disease.

“He had to deal with the fear of waiting for blood results, which were, fortunately, negative.”

Humes was sentenced to four years and six months jail with a non-parole period of two years for armed robbery and the spitting offence in June last year.

Also, Senior Sergeant Alison Coad contracted oral herpes after being spat on by a criminal.

SAPOL would not comment on the medical history of officers but said “this type of incident (spitting) is always of concern.”

“This type of behaviour is totally inappropriate and can result in offenders facing very serious charges,” a spokeswoman said.

The WA Police Union has recently requested officers be equipped with spit hoods because of a spike in incidents there.

Orginally published in The Advertiser

Turkmenistan: New law provides free HIV treatment but mandates HIV testing prior to marriage, and for people who use drugs, prisoners, blood donors and foreigners seeking work visas.

Turkmenistan has passed a law under which all people seeking a marriage license must be tested for HIV.

The law implies that anyone found to be infected with the virus that is the precursor to AIDS would be denied a marriage license.

Reports in state-controlled media on April 6 said the law was enacted “in order to create conditions for forming healthy families and avert the birth of HIV-infected children.”

Authoritarian Turkmenistan has given little public information about the extent of HIV infection in the country.

The new law also requires HIV tests for anyone suspected of using narcotics, foreigners seeking work visas, prisoners, and blood donors.

Under the legislation signed by President Gurbanguly Berdymukhammedov, the government will guarantee free treatment to people infected with AIDS.

In 2002, Turkmenistan’s Health Ministry claimed the country had only two cases of HIV and that both patients had been infected outside the Central Asian state.

Based on reporting by AP and AFP

Zimbabwe: The persecution and prosecution of Harare model highlights reasons why HIV should not be criminalised

For the past few weeks, social and conventional media have been awash with the most heinous of headlines — “Harare model injects lover’s son with HIV.”

BY BELLINDA CHINOWAWA & ELIZABETH MANGENJE

An outraged public bayed for her blood, denouncing the model and calling for her immediate incarceration. After an invasive HIV test, it emerged that the allegations against the model were false, and that she is just another victim of the poorly crafted section 79 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act, which in part reads as follows;

“ Any person who

(a) Knowing that he or she is infected with HIV; or

(b) 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, or does anything which he or she realises involves a real risk or possibility of infecting another person with HIV, 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.”

The wording of this provision is objectionable because:

It criminalises sexual intercourse

Under this section, any person who has had sexual intercourse can be arrested and prosecuted, as with every sexual encounter, there is a risk or possibility of infection with HIV. Scientific research shows that no one method is 100% effective in protecting against the risk of infections. Having safe sexual intercourse is, strictly speaking, irrelevant for the purposes of this provision. A dangerously wide offence has been created.

It creates conditions for false incrimination

It is currently not possible in this country to tell who was infected first. Thus, the story which carries the day is that of the person who reports to the police first. This disadvantages women, who by reason of their reproductive health needs invariably get to know their status first as antenatal care services make HIV-testing compulsory for women. The only option for women to avoid prosecution under section 79 is to avoid antenatal care services or to opt out of HIV-testing, notwithstanding the danger that these decisions present for their own health, the health of their unborn babies and the community at large.

It does not reduce the spread of HIV

There is no evidence that applying criminal law to HIV risk behaviour incapacitates, rehabilitates, or deters offenders.

It promotes fear and stigma

Prosecution under section 79 is typically accompanied by inflammatory and ill-informed media coverage and this only serves to reinforce stigma against people living with HIV.

It penalises a conjectural likelihood

In terms of section 79, one does not actually have to have infected someone with HIV for a court to find that there has been “deliberate transmission of HIV”. Where a person facing charges under this section is tested and found positive, then a court must convict them, whether or not any transmission took place!

It disproportionately affects the already marginalised

Due to the persistence of deep-rooted prejudice against groups such as commercial sex workers, there is a real possibility that criminal prosecution will disproportionately affect them, as they are easy targets for such a witch hunt.

Data and evidence collected in 15 years (1986-2001) on prosecution for HIV transmission or exposure in the United States as well as several studies conducted around Europe revealed that most of the individuals convicted for HIV transmission or exposure were in vulnerable social and economic positions, including, commercial sex workers and prisoners.

Thus, it is arguable that section 79 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) violates section 56 of the Constitution which guarantees non-discrimination and equal protection of the law. A law that puts people at risk of prosecution and 20 years imprisonment for a crime whose elements are not sufficiently clear for them to regulate their conduct cannot be said to be in line with the protection guarantee under the Constitution. As Edwin Cameron, a Judge of the Supreme Court of Appeal of South Africa, has noted, “prosecutions for HIV transmission and exposure, and the chilling content of the enactments themselves, reinforce the idea of HIV as a shameful, disgraceful, unworthy condition.”

The persecution and prosecution of the Harare model is proof of all the reasons why HIV should not be criminalised. The general criminal law is sufficient to deal with instances where a person maliciously and deliberately infects others with HIV, and in other jurisdictions, such persons are charged with assault, or attempted murder. There is no proof that criminalising HIV transmission will achieve either criminal justice or prevents HIV transmission.

The sentiment behind section 79 is understandable — it is grounded in the belief that, given the deleterious nature of HIV, any person living with it, has a moral duty to avoid infecting others. In this instance, however, the criminal law is a blunt instrument, imprecise and heavy-handed, leaving a trail of destruction in its wake. The criminalisation of HIV transmission threatens a human rights response to HIV that empowers people to avoid infection or live successfully with HIV. As UNAIDS has noted, instead of applying criminal law to HIV transmission, governments should expand programmes which have been proven to reduce HIV transmission and strengthen and enforce laws against rape and other forms of sexual violence against women and children.

The events of the past few weeks have shown that Section 79 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act is overly-broad, and open to abuse. It only serves to entrench stigma and discrimination, and has no place in a society ostensibly founded on recognition of the inherent dignity and worth of each human being.

l Bellinda Chinowawa and Elizabeth Mangenje are project lawyers with Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights

Originally published in The Standard

Czech Officials Launch Criminal Investigation Into 30 Gay Men Over HIV Exposure

Czech Republic: Prague Public Health Authority initiates criminal prosecutions of 30 gay men living with HIV following an STI diagnosis

Late last month, Prague’s Public Health Authority initiated criminal investigations against 30 gay men living with HIV that had been diagnosed with a sexually transmitted infection (STI) during the previous year.

The Public Health Authority appear to believe that since these men acquired an STI this is proof that they must have practiced condomless sex and have therefore violated Sections 152 and 153 of the Czech Criminal Code, which a 2005 Supreme Court ruling confirmed could be used to prosecute any act of condomless sex (including oral sex) by a person living with HIV as “spread of infectious diseases”.

There are no individual complainants in these cases.

The Czech AIDS Society responded to the publication of initial media reports on January 26th, with a press release that highlighted:

They have already begun to provide legal counseling to several of these men.
Most of them have an undetectable viral load and/or only have sex only with other men living with HIV (known as ‘serosorting’).
Being diagnosed with an STI does not, in and of itself, prove that condomless sex took place because most STIs can be acquired even when condoms are used.
Fear of punishment will lead to people living with HIV and at risk of a sexually transmitted infection not getting tested or treated.

“Czech AIDS Society has long struggled against the criminalisation of the private life of people living with HIV in cases where there is no HIV transmission. We believe that the HIV epidemic must be fought not through repression, but through the treatment which, in most cases, reduces the viral load of HIV-positive patients to undetectable levels thus eliminating the risk of transmission.”

They went on to make a number of media appearances pointing out that applying criminal law to potential HIV exposure does not reduce the spread of HIV, undermines HIV prevention efforts, promotes fear and stigma, punishes behaviour that is not blameworthy and ignores the real challenges of HIV prevention in the Czech Republic.

They also published a second press release, entitled “Professional failure of public health officials” on February 10th that was strongly critical of the actions of Prague’s Public Health Authority, noting that they have greatly undermined trust in the confidentiality of the public health system which will likely lead to an increase in new HIV infections.

On February 12th, the head of Prague’s Public Health Authority, Ms. Zdenka Jagrova (pictured above), issued a statement in response, suggesting that the Authority is legally obliged to initiate such criminal complaints and that “it would be a professional failure if [we] did not do so…

[We] did not check sexual orientation of HIV-positive people who got infected with another contagious, sexually transmitted disease. It is not an attack on the gay community, but in 2014 no HIV-positive woman in Prague was diagnosed with a sexually transmitted disease. A public health authority is obliged to protect the public health of the population and must act in the same manner as in case of other infectious diseases, for instance TB….This campaign aiming at questioning our practices is clearly intended to assert alleged rights of a minority at the expense of the rights of the majority, i.e. in particular the right to health, irrespective of who and how threatens the health. We consider attempts to create a privileged group that would be excluded from generally defined responsibilities very dangerous.”

A number of organisations representing communities of people living with and affected by HIV are now working together with UNAIDS to support the Czech AIDS Society, including the circulation of a Change.org petition.

It appears that none of the cases have yet been passed to the Public Prosecution office for formal prosecution. However, the investigation has set a dangerous precedent and we understand that public health departments in other regions of the Czech Republic are now considering following the Prague example.

US: A panel of health experts blasts HIV criminalisation laws as a failure that keep people from getting tested and ignore the current state of science

A panel of health experts blasted HIV criminalization laws in nearly three-dozen states as a failure, criticizing the statues for adding stigma to HIV, keeping people from getting tested, and oppressing already marginalized populations such as LGBT people.

And the laws – in place in Georgia and states across the South – or prosecuting people for HIV exposure using other criminal statues – which happens in Texas and four other states – also ignore that partners in consensual sex acts share responsibility for their sexual health, according to Scott Schoettes, a senior attorney and HIV Project Director at Lambda Legal.

“The story is about the AIDS monster out there trying to infect everyone and that is not the case,” Schoettes said (top photo). “Sexual health is a shared responsibility. It creates a sense of false security for the person who is negative – ‘There is this law in place and I can sit back and wait for someone to tell me.'”

He said the laws keep people with HIV from getting tested and few, if any, of the laws require prosecutors to show that an HIV-positive person had any intent to infect a sex partner. Nevermind, he adds, that it’s difficult to prove that someone did disclose their HIV status before sex and once convicted, some state laws call for them to be labeled as sex offenders.

“It becomes a he said, he said and the person with HIV, when you get into that courtroom, is naturally at a disadvantage. A lot of people think that when you have HIV, you have done something wrong. We are still fighting that misperception,” Schoettes said. “When you have a jury that is deciding the fate of someone, they are disconnected from the culture of the folks that they may be actually adjudicating.”

And that can mean steep sentences for people convicted under HIV criminalization laws. In July, Michael Johnson – a black, gay, HIV-positive college wrestler in Missouri – was sentenced to 30 years in prison for infecting a sex partner and putting four others at risk, though prosecutors didn’t show in court that Johnson was the man who infected him. In South Carolina, former gay Atlanta man Tyler Orr faces two counts of exposing another person to HIV and up to 20 years in prison – though he says he did disclose his HIV status to his sex partner.

Schoettes’ comments came during a panel discussion during the 2015 National HIV Prevention Conference in downtown Atlanta earlier this month. He was joined by Randy Mayer, chief of the HIV, STD and Hepatitis Bureau of the Iowa Department of Public Health; Tami Haught, an activist who led efforts in Iowa to reform its HIV criminalization law; David Knight, a trial attorney with the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice; and Terrance Moore, deputy executive director with the National Alliance of State & Territorial AIDS Directors.

‘It’s not a slam dunk’

Knight said the HIV criminalization laws don’t reflect the current state of science and risk surrounding HIV and pointed to a document released earlier this year by the Justice Department calling on states to reform their HIV criminalization laws.

“Two things that we really want to think about is that intentional transmission is atypical and uncommon, and HIV stigma hampers prevention,” Knight said.

The Justice Department document calls on states to tighten their HIV criminalization laws to scrap HIV-specific criminal penalties with two exceptions – when an HIV-positive person commits a sex crime where there is risk of transmission and when there is clear evidence that an HIV-positive person intended to infect another person and engaged in risky behaviors to do so.

But changing HIV criminalization laws in the three-dozen states that have them is a tough haul, Mayer (second photo) and Haught said. They built coalitions across groups and enlisted public health experts to help revise the law in Iowa, a measure passed in 1998 that carried harsh penalties and 25-year prison terms that were often doled out to those convicted.

“In my experience, almost everyone got the 25 years even though that was the maximum,” Mayer said. “It’s not a slam dunk. It’s not an easy sell. Many people, even people living with HIV find themselves on both sides of this issue.”

Iowa lawmakers revised the state’s HIV criminalization law in 2014 to treat HIV like other communicable diseases such as hepatitis and tuberculosis. The law also requires that prosecutors prove intent to transmit, Mayer said.

“We had to bring in the different coalitions and bring in partners. Lawmakers don’t care what is fair and what is right. But they will listen to the public health side of the law,” Haught said. “Iowa’s law was significantly modernized and everyone is better for it.”

The panelists argued that rather than criminalizing HIV-positive people, and adding to the stigma they face, they should be pushed to treatment options. The Centers for Disease Control & Prevention has said getting HIV-positive people tested and connected to care and treatment is key to controlling the disease. Undiagnosed HIV infections fuel the HIV epidemic, Eugene McCray, director of CDC’s Division of HIV/AIDS Prevention, said during the Atlanta conference.

“Getting people into care is a better way to reduce transmission than these laws,” Mayer said.

Originally published in Project Q

Bahrain: HIV-specific law would include criminalising HIV non-disclosure to 'authorities, their partners or relatives'

Bahrain: A new law that both punishes and protects the rights of people with HIV could soon be introduced in Bahrain, reports Gulf Digital News.

[In 2012, it was reported in the Khaleej Times that lawmakers in Bahrain had proposed a penalty of 10 years in prison for people who intentionally transmit HIV to another person. It is not clear if intentional transmission is still criminalised in the latest draft bill, or whether the scope has been broadened to non-disclosure.]

It includes jail sentences and fines for those who fail to disclose they have the virus, as well as employers who penalise HIV-positive staff or job candidates.

The Shura Council yesterday gave the law initial approval, after it was earlier given the green light by the Cabinet.

It is a merger of two bills proposed by parliament and obliges the government to offer free medical and psychological care to those with HIV, as well as conduct awareness programmes.

Under the bill, those who discover they are HIV-positive should immediately report to the Health Ministry, but they can do so anonymously.

Anyone who does not inform authorities, their partners or relatives could be sentenced up to six months in jail and fined up to BD1,000.

The same punishment would apply to those who discriminate against people with HIV, including employers who sack staff who test positive and use it as an excuse for disqualifying a job candidate.

It also stipulates that prisoners with HIV should be housed separately from other inmates, but not held in isolation or treated as outcasts.

“There is a huge misunderstanding within the community regarding those with HIV and people’s reactions are unfair,” said council services committee chairwoman Dr Jehad Al Fadhel, who recommended approval of the law.

“People have to learn to deal with those with transmittable dangerous diseases, not as outcasts but as victims.

“Inhumanity is unacceptable and those who mistreat others due to HIV will be punished severely in accordance with the law – and the same applies to those who fail to inform their partners about their condition.”

The council will continue discussing the law during its session next Monday.

Bahrain has already taken steps to confront HIV and Aids, with the Cabinet last year reforming the National Committee for the Prevention of Aids.

It is tasked with coming up with strategies and programmes to prevent the disease – and ensure confidentiality of medical testing.

Duties and tasks of the committee are outlined in the draft bill currently at the Shura Council.