Kenya: Mandatory HIV reporting directive challenged as unconstitutional and a violation of people's rights

A directive by President Uhuru Kenyatta requiring the compilation of a report on all school children living with HIV and Aids has been challenged in court. The petitioners: Kenya Legal and Ethical Issues Network (Kelin), Children of God Relief Institute (Nyumbani) and two other parties, are apprehensive that compiling such a list violates the law and stigmatises the people living with HIV. High Court judge Mumbi Ngugi certified the matter as urgent and directed that the parties file and serve the relevant documents before the matter is heard tomorrow. The directive issued by the President on February 23 requires county commissioners and the ministries of Health, Education and Interior to collect up to date data and prepare a report on all school children living with HIV and information on their guardians. The directive further calls for information on expectant women and breastfeeding mothers who are HIV-positive. The petitioners stated that the Government agencies had proceeded to implement the directive without consulting people living with the virus, which they say contradicts Article 10 of the Constitution. See also: Leaders dismiss claims of ‘Kiambu-mafia’ machinations “The method of data collection under the said directive is prejudicial to the rights of the people living with HIV,” said Allan Maleche, the executive director at Kelin. He also said the National Aids Control Council (NACC) are holding the names illegally while implementing the president’s directive. Achesa stated in a sworn affidavit that the ministries had continued implementing the directive despite numerous advisory notes from his organisation, constitutional commissions and networks of people living with HIV. He added that a letter sent to the President on March 11 and a follow-up letter two weeks later were yet to be responded to. They now want the court to declare the directive unconstitutional and a violation of people’s rights. They also want the ministries and NACC to be compelled to destroy or codify all data in their possession collected as a result of the directive.

Nigeria: Senate passes law criminalising HIV non-disclosure, exposure and transmission with vague and overly broad statutes in the Sexual Offences Bill

Yesterday, Wednesday, June 3, the Sexual Offences Bill, sponsored by Senator Christiana Anyanwu, (pictured above) was passed by the Nigerian Senate.

The new law contains a number of problematic provisions relating to “HIV or any other life threatening sexually transmitted disease(s)” that were added between the 2012 draft and the 2013 draft that became law yesterday, notably:

Section 24 (Deliberate transmission of HIV or any other life threatening sexually transmitted disease) and
Section 39 (Intentional and unlawful acts)

Section 39 is actually much more of a concern, as it essentially frames non-disclosure of HIV (or any other ‘life-threatening STI, including, potentially, ebola) as sexual assault, because it is seen as fraud vitiating consent to otherwise consensual sex.

39. (1) An act is intentional and unlawful if it is committed. b) under false pretences or by fraudulent means.

(3) False pretences or fraudulent means, referred to in sub-section (1) (b), include circumstances where a person

(c) intentionally fails to disclose to the person in respect of whom an act which causes penetration is being committed, that he or she is infected by HIV or any other life-threatening sexual transmissible disease.

This is similar to – but much worse than – the current legal framework in Canada but without any defence relating to the risk of exposure, such as type of sexual act, condom use, or use of treatment as prevention.

One might argue that Section 24 (Deliberate transmission of HIV or any other life threatening sexually transmitted disease) isn’t as problematic, because it appears, at first glance, to only criminalise “intentionally, knowingly and willfully” transmitting HIV, which is in accordance with UNAIDS guidance.

However, similar to many other overly broad HIV criminalisation statutes across sub-Saharan Africa, under 24. (1) no transmission is necessary (or at least doesn’t need to be proven); it includes some very vague states of mind (“which he or she knows or ought to reasonably know“); and it is unclear what, if any, defences are allowed.

24. (1) Any person who, having actual knowledge that he or she is infected with HIV or any other life threatening sexually transmitted disease intentionally, knowingly and willfully does anything or permits the doing of anything which he or she knows or ought to reasonably know

(a) will infect another person with HIV or any other life threatening sexually transmitted disease;

(b) is likely to lead to another person being infected with HIV or any other life threatening sexually transmitted disease;

(c) will infect another person with any other sexually transmitted disease,

shall be guilty of an offence, whether or not he or she is married to that other person, and shall be liable, upon conviction, to imprisonment for a term of not less than twenty years but which may be enhanced to imprisonment for life.

In addition, under 24 (7) anyone accused or convicted of any of the offences covered in the Act (rape, sexual assault, indecent acts, child-related offences, exploitation of prostitution, incest, indecent exposure, sexual harassment, administering a substance with intent) will be tested for HIV (or other life-threatening STIs) and if found to be positive – whether or not they were aware of their infection – will have have their prison sentence enhanced to 15 years to life.

(7) Where a person is convicted of any offence under this Act and it is proved that at the time of the commission of the offence, the convicted person was infected with HIV or any other life threatening sexually transmitted disease whether or not he or she was aware of his or her infection, not withstanding any other sentence in this Act, he or she shall be liable upon conviction to imprisonment for a term of not less than fifteen years but which may be enhanced to imprisonment for life.

Two states in Nigeria – Enugu and Lagos – currently have overly broad HIV-specific criminal laws. It is not, however, clear whether this new law will override these laws and be binding on all 36 states in the Nigerian federation.

Research undertaken by the Network of People Living with HIV and AIDS in Nigeria (NEPWHAN) in 2010 found no known documented arrests or prosecutions at that time.

In 2013, when sentencing a 21 year-old teacher with HIV who was prosecuted for eloping with, impregnating and allegedly infecting, a 15 year-old former pupil, a Masaka High Court (in Nasarawa state) judge noted during sentencing that it is “common for people with HIV to maliciously infect others”.

In 2013, NEPWHAN and other civil society advocates successfully argued against the inclusion of a paragraph on “willful and deliberate spread of HIV” in the draft Anti HIV Discrimination Bill.

The HIV/AIDS Anti-Discrimination Act 2014 was finally passed earlier this year, and praised by UNAIDS and advocates for people living with HIV in Nigeria with the expectation that it would “create a more supportive environment, allowing people living with HIV to carry on their lives as normally as possible.”

However, the inclusion of the problematic provisions of the Sexual Offences Bill appears to have happened under the radar. Since the 2012 draft contained none of these provisions, they were likely added in 2013, when the draft Anti HIV Discrimination Bill was being discussed.

In one fell swoop 13% of all people living with HIV in the world are now potentially unjustly criminalised.

The full text of the law – one of 46 laws passed in 10 minutes yesterday according to media reports – is below.

Nigeria: Sexual Offences Bill 2015

US: Texas 'HIV criminalization bill' defeated

Despite some last-minute legal wrangling, the Texas legislature failed to pass several anti-gay measures as of the May 27 final deadline for passing any bills that lawmakers wish to see enacted into law. This year’s legislative session ends on June 1….

The legislature also failed to approve an HIV criminalization bill, which would have allowed prosecutors to subpoena the medical records and HIV test results of defendants living with HIV if prosecutors believe that they intended to intentionally infect people. The measure would have protected anybody who releases or discloses a test result in response to a subpoena from any liability, either civil or criminal, or any professionally disciplinary action.

According to LGBT and HIV/AIDS advocates, the bill was unnecessary, as Texas law already allows law enforcement and public safety officials to conduct HIV testing on individuals when appropriate, but there are privacy measures to keep the tests confidential. The advocates claimed the bill would have allowed an HIV-positive test result to be subpoenaed and used in any criminal proceeding against a person who happens to live with HIV, and was subjective, based on the personal whims and discretion of individual prosecutors.

The Human Rights Campaign (HRC), the nation’s top LGBT rights organization, worked with Legacy Community Health of Houston to oppose the HIV criminalization measure, saying revealing the results of an HIV test could potentially bias criminal proceedings, lead to enhanced privacy, and could discourage other people from getting tested for HIV for fear that a positive result would not be kept private and could be used against them.

“The defeat of SB 779 ensures that Texans living with HIV are not further stigmatized and penalized for their positive status,” Januari Leo, the director of public affairs with Legacy Community Health, said in a statement. “HIV is a public health issue that must be addressed through testing, treatment and prevention methods, not criminal prosecutions. HIV is neither a crime nor a death sentence.”

US: [Update] Texas HIV criminalisation bill defeated (link does not reflect this updated news)

The Texas State House is considering SB 779, a bill that would allow any HIV test results to be used in any criminal proceedings against a person with HIV in Texas. This bill is unnecessary – Texas law already allows law enforcement and public safety officials to conduct HIV testing on individuals when appropriate, but there are privacy measures to keep these tests confidential. This bill goes much further – HIV tests could be subpoenaed and used in any criminal proceeding.

HRC opposes this legislation because stigma against people with HIV may bias criminal proceedings, this may unfairly result in enhanced penalties, and of course, because it undermines medical privacy.

From a public health perspective, it is inadvisable and dangerous to create obstacles that might prevent people from seeking or receiving HIV tests. If this bill passes, having a positive HIV test result may be used to enhance penalties or foster bias in criminal proceedings, which creates an incentive for the public to avoid testing. Everyone deserves medical privacy.

SB 779 has already passed the Texas Senate, so this is our last chance to stop this bill from becoming law. Please, if you live in Texas, reach out to your state representative and urge them to oppose SB 779. HRC is also coordinating with state and local advocates to oppose this measure, which compromises the privacy of people living with HIV and public confidence in HIV testing.

US: Alabama lawmaker's proposal to increase 'knowing' HIV/STI transmission to a felony likely to resurface in 2016

People with sexually transmitted diseases who knowingly spread infection to their partners could face prison time, if a bill now in the Legislature becomes law.

Proposed by Rep. Juandalynn Givan, D-Birmingham, the bill would make knowingly transmitting an STD a Class C felony if passed; it’s currently a misdemeanor. Some advocates worry, though, that the bill might have unintended consequences that make it harder to fight the spread of disease.

Givan said her goal was to target those who intentionally put the lives of others at risk. The bill was inspired by calls Givan received following a case involving Montgomery pastor Juan McFarland. “This gentleman knew he had HIV and decided to engage in sexual relationships with multiple women, which could lead to their deaths,” she said.

Some of those women were reluctant to speak out because the charge McFarland could have faced was only a misdemeanor, she said.

“They said ‘I might want to come forward, but there’s not enough strength in the current law. I would have made myself a public spectacle for no reason,’” Givan said the women told her.

AIDS Alabama policy chief Lauren Banks worries that the proposed law could do more harm than good, though.

“By and large this law is not helpful. It stigmatizes HIV or a person with an (sexually transmitted infection) even more,” Banks said. “It would police the bedroom.”

Under current law, those convicted of the misdemeanor offense would face no more than 90 days in jail, Givan said. Offenders might get out on time served.

“That’s absolutely ridiculous,” said Givan.

Banks, who has worked with Givan to modify the bill, worries that the original version does not specify which STDs would be included in the law. Some infections, she noted, can be spread even when using condoms, such as human papilloma virus and herpes.

“So even safe sex could be criminalized,” Banks said.

Banks also said if the bill passes it could cause fewer people to get tested for STDs.

“Other states that have enacted these laws have seen negative fallout because once you know your status, you are culpable. But we want people to know their status. We don’t want people to be afraid of what could happen to them.”

Banks suggested another way to counteract rising STD rates.

“If anything, we should focus on creating sexual health education curricula for our schools that is age-appropriate and medically accurate,” she said. “Let’s be preventative and not punitive.”

Eric Guster, a Birmingham attorney who frequently comments on criminal issues, said the consequences of tougher sentencing should be considered.

“If a person is found guilty, a first-time offender would receive a possible sentence of a year and day to 10 years in prison,” he said.

Guster said he’d want the bill to specify the diseases mentioned. He pointed out several problems with enforcing the law.

“The misdemeanor is rarely used because people don’t want to put their sexual history on display,” he said. “When you’re speaking of STDs, people go to the doctor, get treated and then move on with their lives.”

Also, the burden of proof would be steep.

“The affected person has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that that partner gave them the disease and that’s the only sexual partner they’ve had who could’ve done it,” he said.

Making knowingly transmitting an STD a felony without creating stiffer penalties for certain types of diseases also raised concerns for Guster.

“When you have cases where younger people have a disease that is easily transferable, that puts a lot of students at risk for felonies for just doing things teenagers do,” Guster said.

Givan said she has received calls of support from colleagues on both sides of the aisle. She and Banks also discussed possible changes to the bill.

“Juandalynn tried to meet us halfway with amendments such as transmission has to occur, and a disclaimer that if you tell your partner you have HIV, you would be exempt from prosecution if they were infected,” said Banks.

The bill, however, has not moved since the beginning of the legislative session in March, and appears to be running out of time for passage this year.

Givan said she changed the bill late last week and expected it to be the first one “in the hopper to go out for sponsorship next year.”

“I want safeguards in place,” she said. “I think it’s a piece of legislation that is needed. I just want to be sure we do it the right way.”

US: REPEAL HIV Discrimination Act reintroduced by Congresswoman Barbara Lee even as some US states propose new HIV-specific criminal laws

The past month or so has seen a huge amount of activity around overly broad HIV criminalisation in the United States, culminating the reintroduction of the REPEAL HIV Discrimination Act by Congresswoman Barbara Lee.

As well as on-going arrests and prosecutions of individuals for alleged non-disclosure (and some excellent reporting on certain cases, such as that of Michael ‘Tiger Mandingo’ Johnson in Missouri or of two new cases on the same day in Michigan) new problematic HIV-related criminal laws have been proposed in Alabama, Missouri, Rhode Island and Texas.

Fortunately, most of these bills have been stopped due to rapid responses from well networked grass roots advocates (many of whom are connected via the Sero Project’s listserv) as well as state and national HIV legal and policy organisations, including the Positive Justice Project.

REPEAL HIV Discrimination Act

On March 24th, Congresswoman Barbara Lee reintroduced a new iteration of the REPEAL HIV Discrimination Act (H.R.1586), “to modernize laws, and eliminate discrimination, with respect to people living with HIV/AIDS, and for other purposes”.

The full text of the bill can be found here.

The last time the REPEAL Act was introduced, in 2013, it had 45 co-sponsors before dying in committee. The first iteration, introduced in 2011, achieved 41 co-sponsors.

As of April 15th, the 2015 iteration has three co-sponsors, two Democrats – Jim McDermott and Adam B Schiff – and one Republican, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen.

As in 2011 and 2013, the bill has been referred to three House Committees: Judiciary, Energy and Commerce, and Armed Services.

Back in 2013, the Positive Justice Project produced an excellent toolkit that provides advocates with resources which “can be used in outreach efforts, including a guide for letter writing campaigns, calling your representative’s state and Washington D.C. offices, or meeting with your representative or the representative’s legislative staff.”

If you’re in the US, you can also show Congress that you support this bill at: https://www.popvox.com/bills/us/114/hr1586

Alabama

On April 1, 2015 the House Judiciary Committee of the Alabama Legislature held a hearing on HB 50, proposed by Democrat Representative Juandalynn Givan, that would increase the penalty for exposure or transmission of a sexually transmitted infection from a class C misdemeanour (punishable by up to 3 months in jail and a $500 fine) to a class C felony (punishable by up to 10 years in prison).

Representative Givan was apparently inspired to propose the bill after reading about a pastor in Montgomery, Alabama, who admitted in an October 2014 sermon that he was living with HIV and engaging in sex with women in his congregation without having disclosed his status. (He wasn’t prosecuted, but appears to have lost his job, as of the last news report in December 2014.)

In an interview in March 2015, she told AL.com that Alabama is one of only 16 states in the nation where it is a misdemeanour rather than a felony to ‘knowingly expose another person to a sexually transmitted disease’.

“What this bill is about is responsibility and accountability…The aim of this bill is not to punish those people with a sexually transmitted disease but to hold those people accountable,” that knowingly transmit dangerous illnesses to other people.

Some of the testimony before the House Judiciary Committee – most of it against the bill – is reported (rather poorly) in the Alabama Political Reporter.

Before the hearing began, the Positive Justice Project Steering Committee sent a powerful letter to the members of the House Judiciary Committee, voicing their strong opposition to the bill.

Medical experts and public health officials agree that criminalizing the conduct of people living with HIV does nothing to decrease the rates of infection, and may actually deter conduct and decisions that reduce disease transmission. Consequently, the American Medical Association, HIVMA, ANAC, and NASTAD have issued statements urging an end to the criminalization of HIV and other infectious diseases. Notably, the U.S. Department of Justice recently issued “Best Practices Guide to Reform HIV-Specific Criminal Laws,” which counsels states to end felony prosecutions of people living with HIV as contrary to the relevant science and national HIV prevention goals.

The bill remains with the House Judiciary Committee, but seems unlikely to be passed given that there are no co-sponsors.

Missouri

On March 10th, Republican Representative Travis Fitzwater introduced HB 1181, which proposed adding ‘spitting whilst HIV-positive’ to Missouri’s (already overly draconian) current HIV-specific criminal statute.

It is unclear what caused Rep Fitzwater to introduce the bill. However, advocacy against it was swift, with the local chapters of both ACLU and Human Rights Campaign, and Missouri-based HIV advocate, Aaron Laxton, planning to testify against it within days of it being introduced.

Although the bill was scheduled for a public hearing before the Civil and Criminal Proceedings Committee on April 7th, the community’s quick response meant the bill was not heard. According to Laxton, “within a matter of hours every member of the Civil and Criminal Proceedings Committee has received calls, emails, tweets and messages from many people” against the bill.

The proposed bill now appears to be dead, and advocacy in Missouri is now focused on modernising the existing HIV-specific law (which includes criminalising biting whilst HIV-positive) to take into account the latest science around HIV risk and harm.

Rhode Island

On February 24th, Republican Representative Robert Nardolillo introduced a new HIV-specific criminal law (H 5245) that would have criminalised HIV non-disclosure in the state for the first time.

In an interview with Zack Ford on thinkprogress.org, Rep Nardolillo said that as a survivor of sexual abuse he was surprised to discover that Rhode Island law does not allow for harsh enough penalties if HIV is passed on during a sexual assault.

However, although his proposed bill created a felony when someone with HIV “forcibly engages in sexual intercourse,” it also criminalised when someone “knowingly engages in sexual intercourse with another person without first informing that person of his/her HIV infection.”

The entire hearing before the Rhode Island House Judiciary Committee was captured on video, and an excellent blog post by Steve Ahlquist on RIFuture.org highlighted both Rep Nardolillo’s ignorance of the potential harms of the bill, and the sustained and powerful testimonies against the bill from public health experts, people living with HIV and HIV NGOs alike.

Ahlquist concludes, “In the face of such strong opposition, it seems extremely unlikely that this legislation will advance out of committee.”

All testimonies are available to view in short video clips on the blog. You can also read the written testimony of the AIDS Law Project of the Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD) here.

Texas

On February 25, Republican Senator Joan Huffman introduced SB 779, which would essentially have created an HIV-specific criminal law by the back door.

Texas repealed its previous HIV-specific criminal law in 1994 and uses general criminal statutes, including attempted murder and aggravated assault, for potential or perceived HIV exposure and alleged HIV transmission cases.

According to the Advocacy Without Borders blog, “SB 779 proposes to amend the state Health and Safety Code to allow for HIV test results (which are currently confidential) to be subpoenaed during grand jury proceedings – and for a defendant’s medical records to be accessed without their consent to establish guilt/innocence and also potentially to be used to determine sentencing. Essentially, this bill proposes to criminalize having HIV.”

The proposed law, and a number of other proposed HIV-related laws, was also critiqued in a Dallas Voice article highlighting the opinion of Januari Leo, who works with Legacy Community Health Service.

Leo, a longtime social worker who has worked with clients living with HIV, is blunt about the three bills: “They would criminalize HIV. HIV isn’t a crime. It’s a public health problem…These new bills use HIV status as a crime, against people who are suspects in a crime but have yet to be proven guilty. They’re allowing prosecutors to use private medical records, as mandated under HIPPA, as a weapon.”

Although it was considered in a public hearing before the State Affairs Committee on April 16, it now appears to be dead.

Victorian Government to repeal 19A and address HIV stigma

The Victorian Government has announced it will repeal section 19A of the state’s Crimes Act, which specifically criminalises intentional transmission of HIV and is widely considered to stigmatise people living with HIV. The law is the only one of its kind in Australia, singling out intentional HIV transmission for harsher penalties of up to 25 years imprisonment, while the maximum penalty for manslaughter is 20 years.

HIV organisations have lobbied for the change for some time, arguing that section 19A is stigmatising and unnecessary, because intentional infection with HIV could be considered under existing criminal offences such as “causing serious injury”.

Stigma against people living with HIV is also widely understood to be counterproductive to HIV prevention, and the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS and the Global Commission on HIV and the Law and have singled out HIV-specific criminal laws as contributing to HIV stigma.

“People living with HIV are entitled to equality before the law, and this is another step forward in ensuring that,” Victorian Attorney-General Martin Pakula said.

“This is about reducing the stigma and discrimination faced by people living with HIV, and in turn promoting equal protection by the law of all Victorians.”

Equality Minister Martin Foley told the Star Observer he understood the potential for the repeal of 19A to be met with some resistance among gay men, but said it was a perfect example of why this is a necessary reform.

“This is about stigma, and removing stigma in particular within the community, and that’s almost an expression of how stigma creates within the community this self-fulfilling prophecy,” he said.

“I understand the whole notion of protecting members of the LGBTI community from transmission, but it’s not by punitive ‘big sticks’, it’s done through public health positive messaging… inducing fear and pushing people underground has been shown to be counterproductive.

“As so many informed, global experts — let alone community experts have said, this is how you do it, by removing the stigma, by encouraging proper discussion within the community about safe-sex practises, and if the disease is there, appropriate treatment.”

A commitment from the then-Labor Opposition to repeal the law was secured during last year’s AIDS 2014 conference in Melbourne, on the back of a campaign led by Living Positive Victoria and the Victorian AIDS Council.

“Research around the world shows this is the right way to combat HIV,” HIV Legal Working Group chair Paul Kidd said.

“Our organisations strongly believe the Public Health and Wellbeing Act provides the best way to deal with allegations of risky behaviour — keeping the public safe and protecting human rights.”

Doherty Institute director and local co-chair for AIDS 2014 Professor Sharon Lewin said the repeal was important outcome from the conference.

“Reducing HIV transmission is best approached through effective public health policy and community engagement — not through criminalisation and stigma,” she said.

“The repeal of section 19A is a very welcome announcement and an important enduring legacy from AIDS 2014 to see an end to stigma and discrimination for all people living with HIV.”

Victorian AIDS Council chief executive Simon Ruth called on the Coalition to support the repeal.

“Now that this legislation has been introduced, we hope it is met with the same bipartisan support we have seen in the Victorian response to HIV/AIDS historically,” he said.

“Repealing 19A will allow us to combat the stigma experienced by PLHIV and to continue our work in HIV prevention — a vital step forward if we’re to see a future with no new HIV notifications in Victoria.”

The then-Coalition government indicated support for “removing discrimination” associated with section 19A of the Crimes Act during AIDS 2014.

US: Missouri proposal to add spitting whilst HIV-positive to criminal law likely defeated following strong pushback

On Tuesday, the Missouri House Committee on Civil and Criminal Proceedings held a hearing on HB 1181, a bill that would criminalize individuals knowingly infected with HIV who spit at another person. Contact with saliva has never been shown to result in HIV transmission.

HRC Senior Legislative Counsel Alison Gill testified in opposition to this harmful bill.

“According to the Presidential Commission on the HIV Epidemic, criminal sanctions for HIV transmission must be carefully drawn, directed only towards behavior which is scientifically established as a mode of transmission, and should be employed only when all other public health and civil actions fail to produce responsible behavior,” she testified. “H.B. 1181 fails to meet this standard because it criminalizes behavior with a low or negligible risk of HIV transmission, which may result in stigmatization and negative health outcomes among people with HIV and the LGBT community in Missouri.”

HRC urges the Missouri lawmakers to oppose this unnecessary and harmful bill.

Czech Republic: Health Ministry proposes law to make HIV testing mandatory for key populations

The Czech Health Ministry is pushing a proposed amendment to the law on public health which would make HIV testing compulsory for some people in high risk groups. While the ministry argues that this is to curb the spread of the disease and ensure early treatment, human rights advocates say it would mean a serious breach of human rights.

HIV testing in the Czech Republic is conducted anonymously and is free of charge. In its prevention programmes the Czech AIDS Help Society highlights the importance of getting tested in order to enable early treatment of the disease and protect others in the event of a positive outcome. Still many people who engage in what is seen as high-risk behaviour do not want to undergo testing. The Czech Health Ministry now wants to change that and force people who are considered to be at high risk to undergo testing or face a tall fine.

The proposed amendment to the law has already passed without opposition through the health committee of the Chamber of Deputies and is due to go into a third reading in the lower house. However it has stirred controversy among human rights advocates, and is strongly opposed both by the Czech AIDS Help Society and the government’s committee for the rights of sexual minorities.

Robert Hejzák, photo: Czech Television Robert Hejzák from the Czech AIDS Help Society says repression is not the way to go –even in the interest of protecting public health.

“Human rights are universal and we do not accept the argument that in the case of HIV they should be violated in the interest of public health. Moreover HIV positive people are not a direct threat to the public – this is not ebola, it is not tuberculosis or even the flu.”

The country’s chief hygiene officer Vladimír Valenta refuses to hear this argument saying that the health authorities have a duty to protect the public from an epidemic.

“We are talking about individuals who are at the centre of a high-risk environment and there is a higher probability of infection. From an epidemiological point of view HIV is no different from other diseases that put the population at risk. There is a danger off the virus spreading and this danger merits the same kind of protective measures as in other potential epidemics.”

Vladimír Valenta, photo: Filip Jandourek At present the Czech Republic (with over 10 million inhabitants) has over 2,000 people registered HIV positive, and over 200 people have died of AIDS. Each year brings on average around 230 new cases. Under the present legislation testing is only compulsory for pregnant women in order to enable heightened protection of the unborn child. If the newly-proposed amendment passes through both chambers of Parliament and is signed into law by the president pretty much anyone considered high risk could be forced to undergo a test for HIV. How this would prevent them from spreading the disease further or even encourage them to act responsibly with regard to their own health is not clear and the answer to those questions may be decisive in whether lawmakers allow this particular amendment to pass through a third and final reading in the lower house.

Sudan: Draft law providing rights and protections for people living with HIV also comes with responsibilities, including criminalising 'intentional' transmission and non-disclosue to 'prospective spouses'

April 2, 2015 (KHARTOUM) – Sudan is in the process of drafting a law to protect the rights of those living with HIV/AIDS and ensure that they receive medical and psychological care. The bill, which is being drafted by legal experts, people living with HIV/AIDS, physicians and officials, will also criminalise the intentional transmission of the disease.

Sudan’s ministry of health revealed last December that there are 79,000 cases of AIDS in the country.

The draft law would state that people living with HIV/AIDS enjoy all the rights guaranteed by the constitution and international conventions ratified by Sudan.

It prohibits any form of discrimination based on HIV status that would lead to the degradation of their dignity or erosion of their rights or exploitation.

Furthermore, the draft bill gives the patients the right to housing, access to goods and services and prohibits subjecting any citizen to HIV check as a condition for employment or dismissing employees who contract the virus unless it is proven through a medical report that they are incapable of performing their job functions.

Even then, they will have the right to request being transferred to another job.

The law granted HIV/AIDS patients the right to request open-ended sick leave with full pay in case of health-related complications and to receive social security.

For children living with the virus, they would have the right of access to health care and medical counseling and cannot be dismissed or transferred from their schools.

The law also guarantees confidentiality of their information and ensures that it cannot be published in the media without the patient’s consent.

Court trials can be held in a closed setting if one of the parties involved has HIV/AIDS, the law says. It also dictates that HIV screening would be voluntary and confidential. It would also allow infected moms to retain custody of their children.

But the law also obliges patients to take the necessary steps including seeking medical help to prevent transmission of the virus to others. Failing to do so would be punishable by law.

Should an infected individual decide to marry they should notify their prospective spouse and comply with instructions that prevent transmitting the virus.