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.

Russia: Chechen parliamentarian proposes mandatory HIV testing prior to marriage; has been policy in Chechnya since 2011

The lower house of the Russian parliament is considering legislation that would force couples wishing to get married to agree to mandatory HIV testing. The bill was submitted to the Duma by Magomed Selimkhanov, a Chechen deputy from the ruling United Russia party.

The legislation’s memorandum states that such a law would help identify cases of HIV infection that are currently going unrecorded, allow people get medical attention earlier, reduce the number of children infected with the disease, and contribute to the fight against the spread of HIV in Russia.

The Duma’s committee on health has supported mandatory HIV testing as a requirement for marriage. Anna Popova, the head of Russia’s Federal Service for Supervision of Consumer Rights Protection and Human Well-Being, has also signaled her support for such regulations.

According to Popova’s agency, more than 160,000 cases of HIV infection have been recorded in Russia over the past two years. Almost half of these cases are among Russians between the ages of 30 and 40. Roughly 20,000 HIV-infected people in Russia die every year.

Ramzan Kadyrov, the head of Russia’s Chechen Republic, is appealing on Instagram to Russian lawmakers, asking them to back the legislation. Chechnya has enforced such a policy since 2011, testing more than 95,000 people and discovering 94 cases of HIV infection, Kadyrov says.

Prison time for HIV?

Prison time for HIV? It’s possible in Veracruz

El Daily Post, August 6th 2015

New legislation passed by the Veracruz state Congress calls for up to five years in prison for “willfully” infecting another with HIV, which can lead to AIDS. The measure is fraught with legal, medical, public health and human rights problems, but supporters insist it will help protect vulnerable women.

The Veracruz state Congress has unanimously approved legislation that calls for prison time for anyone who intentionally infects another person with the HIV virus or other sexually transmitted diseases.

The amendment to the state penal code makes Veracruz the second Mexican state (after Guerrero) to criminalize the sexual transmission of illnesses. Another 11 states have sanctions in the books for infecting others with “venereal diseases,” a term and concept no longer used in the medical community.

But Veracruz has stipulated a more severe punishment than the other states — from six months to five years in prison. Guerrero also has a maximum of five years, but it’s minimum is three months.

The bill was promoted by Dep. Mónica Robles Barajas, a member of the Green Party, which is allied with the ruling Institutional Revolutionary Party. She said the legislation is aimed at protecting women who can be infected by their husbands.

“It’s hard for a woman to tell her husband to use a condom,” she said in an interview with the Spanish-language online news site Animal Político.

The legislation, however, raises serious questions, both legal and medical, as well as concerns about human rights.

The most obvious problem is the notion of “intentional” infection. Robles emphasizes that the bill is based on a “willful” passing of the virus, which she defines as a carrier having sexual relations when he or she is aware of his or her HIV infection.

But the notion of intentionality in such cases is a complicated one for prosecutors, legal experts say. The he-said/she-said factor can be a sticking point, according to Luis González Plascencia, a former head of the Mexico City human rights commission, with the accusation likely to be based on one person’s testimony.

“There could be ways to show through testimony that there was an express intention to infect,” González told Animal Político. “But that’s always going to be circumstantial.”

A likely abuse of the law, he said, is attempted revenge or blackmail. An angry spouse or other partner can, with a simple declaration, create a legal nightmare.

Even if the issue of intentionality can be overcome, the very notion of criminalizing HIV infection is controversial. AIDs and human rights experts are against it.

One of them is Ricardo Hernández Forcada, who directs the HIV-AIDS program at Mexico’s National Human Rights Commission (CNDH). International experience, he says, indicates that punitive policies accomplish little besides government intrusion into private life. (Eastern Europe and Southeast Asia are regions where laws similar to the new one in Veracurz have existed.)

A Veracruz non-governmental organization called the Multisectoral HIV/AIDS Group issued a communiqué in response to the new legislation, declaring, “Scientific evidence shows that legislation and punishment do not prevent new infections, nor do they reduce female vulnerability. Instead, they negatively affect public health as well as human rights.”

González concurred. “The only thing that’s going to happen is that there will be another crime in the penal code that won’t accomplish anything except generate fear,” he said.

The Multisectoral Group also pointed out a disconnect between the law and medical science. It’s virtually impossible, the group says, to determine with certainty who infected whom with a sexually transmitted disease.

“Phylogenetic analyses alone cannot determine the relationship between two HIV samples,” the group said in its release. “They cannot establish the origin of an infection beyond a reasonable doubt, or how it occurred, or when it occurred.”

Robles, for her part, objects to the notion that the legislation criminalizes HIV carriers, insisting that the target is the intentional infection of another through sex. She emphasized that the aim of the new law is to protect women, who are often in a vulnerable situation.

“It’s directed much more at protecting women than homosexual groups,” she said. “There is a high incidence among women because there is no awareness of the risk they run.”

Opponents, however, see the new law as a step backward for men and women, and for public health in general, insisting that penalization comes at the expense of prevention.

“Knowing that they could be at risk of prosecution, people won’t get tested,” the CNDH’s Hernández Forcada said. “These measures inhibit people’s will to know their diagnosis.”

Nigeria: The Ondo State government has announced the commencement of the implementation of its HIV Anti-stigma law which prescribed a 10 year jail term, fine of N500,000 or both for any person who by whatever means transmits HIV to another person

Akure – The Ondo State government has announced the commencement of the implementation of its HIV Anti-stigma law which prescribed a 10 year jail term, fine of N500,000 or both for any person who by whatever means transmits HIV to another person.

Giving details of the law, which was signed last year, the Secretary to the State Government and Chairman, Ondo State Agency for the Control of AIDS, Dr. Aderotimi Adelola, said stigmatization and discrimination discourages people infected with and affected by HIV from accessing health and social services.

The law stipulates further that anybody who discriminates against people living with HIV commits an offence and is liable to fine of N100,000.00 or imprisonment of six months or both.

He spoke in Akure while delivering a keynote address at a sensitization programme to facilitate and ensure the enforcement of a law for the prevention of the spread of HIV and AIDS, elimination of discrimination and stigmatization of people living with HIV and “other matters incidental thereto or connected therewith.”

Adelola said most times the rights of people living with HIV are violated, causing them to suffer both the burden of the disease and the consequential loss of other rights.

US : Mississippi lawmakers pass law mandating HIV testing for anyone arrested for sexual assault

Updated by Paul Boger at Law enforcement officers will soon be able to do mandatory AIDS testing on those arrested for sexual assault. House Bill 2-57 was passed by lawmakers with nearly unanimous support in Mississippi’s House and Senate. The measure gives law enforcement the right to test individuals arrested for sexually assaulting a minor for diseases such as HIV and AIDS.

Under current Mississippi law, testing can only be conducted after a person has been convicted of a crime. Proponents say the new law will help young victims know if they’ve been exposed to a terrible disease. Republican Representative Mark Formby of Picayune helped draft the law. He says the test would become part of the intake process.

“If you’re arrested and you get photographed; it is not any additional evasive behavior,” says Formby. “We are documenting that you were arrested, which means that there was some degree of evidence that implicated you in a crime.”

Despite the measure’s popularity among lawmakers, some groups like the ACLU of Mississippi believe the law is a slippery slope.

Keia Johnson is the organization’s legislative strategist. She says the law amounts to an unreasonable search and seizure.

“We believe that when you mandate that DNA is to be collected for HIV testing purposes or anything like that upon arrest, that you are violating the due process of law,” Johnson says.

According to Representative Formby, both the suspect and the victim will be given the results of the test 24 hours after it was taken. At that time, all other DNA samples would be destroyed.

Antigua & Barbuda: 'Intentional HIV spread' rumours lead to calls for HIV-specific criminal law

The head of a local HIV/AIDS advocacy group is calling for residents to be more mindful of their sexual behaviour amidst rumors that people are intentionally spreading the HIV virus to others. The advice comes from Executive Director of the Antigua & Barbuda HIV/AIDS Network Inc (ABHAN) Eleanor Frederick.

“We cannot stop sending the message out there that HIV is alive and well and that we have to protect ourselves,” she said.

“Each person must take responsibility. First know their status and know their partner’s status. Use protection.”

An email to OBSERVER media from the Attorney General’s office stated that the Minster, Steadroy “Cutie” Benjamin, was recently presented with information to suggest that several residents have been intentionally infecting others with HIV.

In light of the allegations, an anonymous group of concerned citizens have called on Benjamin to enact laws to hold the culprits accountable.

“The group said that such vicious actions, in their estimation, is a matter of national security, and many lives are at risk and action needs to be taken soonest,” the missive read.

Benjamin, who is the country’s national security minister said he has promised that further research will be done to see what laws can be introduced to deal with the situation.

He is calling on members of society to protect themselves.

Frederick said she would support any move to criminalise the intentional spread of HIV/AIDS.

“I think it’s something that needs to be looked at. It’s not always a deterrent because when people are intent they couldn’t care less. There are those that decide they’re going to infect someone no matter what and there are others who will think twice about it, so we have to put something there,” she said.

Several countries across the world already have legislation condemning the intentional or reckless infection of another person with the HIV virus.

Some areas of the US have enacted laws expressly to criminalize HIV transmission or exposure, charging those accused with criminal transmission of HIV.

Others, including the United Kingdom, charge the accused under existing laws with crimes such as murder, manslaughter, attempted murder, or assault.