Mexico: 30 states retain the crime of “danger of contagion” in their local penal codes

Danger of contagion’, the offence punishable in 30 states and organisations call for repeal to avoid stigmatisation

Automated translation via Deepl.com – For article in Spanish please scroll down.

In Mexico, with the exception of Aguascalientes and San Luis Potosí, 30 states retain the crime of “danger of contagion” in their local penal codes, a remnant from decades ago that only contributes to the stigmatisation and persecution of people living with HIV.

Coahuila and Tamaulipas provide penalties for “whoever transmits AIDS” in particular, but seven other states – Baja California, Oaxaca, Zacatecas, Puebla, Veracruz, Sonora, Yucatan and Nayarit – directly criminalise those who have a sexually transmitted infection and engage in conduct that could be considered “dangerous” to the health of another person.

Zacatecas and Nayarit also penalise a woman with a disease or syphilis who breastfeeds a baby.

In 17 states, criminal penalties imposed on a person for allegedly transmitting a disease can be aggravated by up to several years in prison, according to the study “La legislación mexicana en materia de VIH y sida. Its impact on people living with HIV”, carried out by the Mexican Network of Organisations against the Criminalisation of HIV.

Danger of infection, a crime that contributes to discrimination

The civil codes of Baja California Sur, Guerrero and Baja California specify that people living with HIV are prohibited from marrying.

In 20 states, a person with a chronic or incurable disease cannot be granted guardianship of a minor. Furthermore, in 19 states, a medical certificate stating that one does not have an illness is required as a condition of marriage.

These restrictions make it possible to “undermine some of the rights of people living with HIV,” the document warns.

In contrast, to guarantee the right to non-discrimination of people living with HIV, only 14 states consider HIV testing without consent or as a requirement for employment to be discriminatory.

Only 12 states identify stigmatising or violating the rights of people living with HIV as a discriminatory action, and only two states have passed and maintain HIV-specific laws.

“To begin with, the crime of contagion is a crime that is based on an assumption; it is not a crime that is scientifically verifiable, because there are not enough tools to be able to determine who did or did not transmit a virus to another person,” explains Leonardo Bastida, one of the authors of the analysis, in an interview.

Bastida says that there is still a lot of stigmatisation towards those living with HIV or who have a virus-related illness, as in the case of COVID-19.

“This causes people to be afraid of the situation, that they are not interested in getting diagnosed in order to avoid problems, because in a certain way, seeing this as something bad, does not generate a sense of responsibility, of personal and collective care.

At the same time, it also inhibits the generation of public health policies that should be focused on reducing the number of new infections; it also sends a message of negativity, guilt and punishment, when with the scientific advances that exist to date, the majority of people living with HIV can achieve undetectability and, therefore, non-transmissibility of the virus.

“There are codes that are very specific, that if the disease is contagious or puts people’s lives in danger; many adjectives are used that do not correspond to reality, so this image is given of associating it with something bad and that the person living with HIV, by that simple fact, is a risk factor, when in reality the risk factors are others; it generates a contradictory and somewhat ambiguous message for society,” adds Bastida.

Most of the articles in penal codes that punish the crime of “danger of contagion” came into force between 1920 and 1930, that is, they are almost 100 years old. Since 2015, attempts have been made to reform these articles, not to eliminate them, but to establish stronger sentences.

In at least seven states, cases have been prosecuted on the basis of this crime: 15 in Veracruz, 14 in Sonora, five in Tamaulipas, four in the State of Mexico, three in Chihuahua, one in Nuevo León and one in Mexico City.

“The prosecutors’ offices, seeing it in force in the law, insist on taking it up again; and often the argument is that the transmission is on purpose, a situation that cannot be ruled out, but for that there are already crimes of injury in the penal codes themselves, so a transmission with malice aforethought could be included in those terms. It is clearer than leaving an ambiguous offence, which is also only based on assumptions,” Bastida explains.

The danger lies in the fact that by accusing someone of the crime, if that person tests reactive, it is enough to prosecute them, when the only thing that is being checked is their state of health, but not whether or not they transmitted HIV.

“It is important to understand that what we are sanctioning is a belief, a hypothesis, but we are not sanctioning concrete facts,” he adds.

Promoting work with local legislatures

Antonio Matus, from the organisation AHF, maintains that the general tendency at the moment is to penalise, to punish for everything and to increase the number of crimes, so that when a criminal offence is eliminated there may be a general perception that there is injustice, which could explain the resistance in the legislative sphere to repeal this offence.

The group is currently working on legislative advocacy to present initiatives in Oaxaca, Veracruz and Guanajuato.

“Other countries have already made progress in this regard, and the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV and AIDS itself has issued several bulletins, in which, when such provisions have been repealed, UNAIDS has publicly acknowledged these actions. One of the most recent cases is in Colombia, where it issued a press statement welcoming the Colombian constitutional court’s decision to repeal the section of the penal code that criminalises HIV transmission,” Matus explained.

Having the legislative analysis in a document is very important because it makes recommendations to both state legislatures and the Congress of the Union to repeal criminal and civil provisions that stigmatize people with HIV.

Similarly, the federal Ministry of Health and CENSIDA are recommended to update NOM-010-SSA2-2010 on HIV prevention and control, which is more than 10 years old. Within it, there could be a provision that avoids criminalisation at the federal level, as it is mandatory.

On 30 April 2018, the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation set a first precedent against the criminalisation of HIV, when it declared invalid the portion of Article 158 of the criminal code of Veracruz, which punishes the crime of danger of contagion, which specifically referred to “sexually transmitted or other infections”.

This ruling followed an action of unconstitutionality brought by the National Human Rights Commission (CNDH) over the legislative reform that added the explicit reference to HIV, sexually transmitted infections and others.

For the state of Nuevo León, an appeal, also promoted by the CNDH, against Article 337 bis, reformed in the context of the pandemic by COVID-19, is still pending.

Meanwhile, in Mexico City, an initiative to repeal the crime of danger of contagion has been presented three times before the local congress without success.

This follows demonstrations and complaints from civil society organisations after the Mexico City District Attorney’s Office publicised the arrest of a man living with HIV for the crime of endangering contagion on 4 June 2021. He was later released on the basis of an injunction.

The Mexico City Council for the Prevention and Elimination of Discrimination established that the criminalisation of danger of contagion fosters a narrative of violence and discrimination, and that the criminal offence represents a repressive vision of sexuality, advancing a punishment for mere danger based on prejudice, which obeys a criminal law alien to the paradigm of human rights and contrary to the principle of dignity.

For Matus, there are all the legal and public policy elements to repeal the crime. Otherwise, if it is transferred to other types of diseases, this type of criminal offence would cause people not to get tested, hide their diagnosis and fear being punished.

The activist argues that this, on a public health level, affects all people, not just those living with HIV.

These kinds of provisions, which may have the good intention of preventing transmission, ignore advances in science, as antiretroviral treatment currently increases defences in such a way that the viral load is reduced to undetectability, a state in which the virus is no longer transmitted.

“Without wishing to point fingers or criminalise people who consider themselves victims of this type of crime, we believe that the option for our society is co-responsibility, that everyone knows, is educated, receives information and is aware of what can happen when having unprotected sex,” he concludes.

‘Peligro de contagio’, el delito que se castiga en 30 estados y organizaciones piden derogarlo para evitar estigmatización

En México, a excepción de Aguascalientes y San Luis Potosí, 30 entidades conservan la tipificación del delito de “peligro de contagio” en sus códigos penales locales, un remanente de hace décadas que solo contribuye a estigmatizar y perseguir a las personas que viven con VIH.

En Coahuila y Tamaulipas se prevén sanciones para “quien transmita el SIDA” en particular, pero otros siete estados –Baja California, Oaxaca, Zacatecas, Puebla, Veracruz, Sonora, Yucatán y Nayarit– penalizan directamente a quienes padezcan una infección de transmisión sexual y tengan conductas susceptibles de considerarse “peligrosas” para la salud de otra persona.

Zacatecas y Nayarit sancionan, además, a la mujer que con alguna enfermedad o sífilis amamante a un bebé.

En 17 estados, las sanciones penales impuestas a una persona por la presunta transmisión de una enfermedad pueden agravarse hasta con varios años de cárcel, según el estudio “La legislación mexicana en materia de VIH y sida. Su impacto en las personas viviendo con VIH”, realizado por la Red Mexicana de Organizaciones contra la Criminalización del VIH.

Peligro de contagio, delito que contribuye a la discriminación

Los códigos civiles de Baja California Sur, Guerrero y Baja California especifican la prohibición de casarse a quienes viven con VIH.

En 20 estados, a una persona con una enfermedad crónica o incurable no puede otorgársele la tutela de un menor. Por otro lado, en 19 estados es obligatorio presentar un certificado médico que especifique que no se padece alguna enfermedad como condición para casarse.

Estas restricciones posibilitan “menoscabar algunos de los derechos de las personas que viven con VIH”, advierte el documento.

En contraste, para garantizar el derecho a la no discriminación de las personas con VIH, solo 14 entidades federativas consideran como discriminatoria la aplicación de pruebas de VIH sin consentimiento o como exigencia para conseguir trabajo.

Solo 12 entidades señalan como acción discriminatoria estigmatizar o vulnerar los derechos de las personas que viven con VIH y únicamente en dos entidades han sido aprobadas y se mantienen vigentes leyes específicas en materia de VIH.

“Para empezar, el delito de contagio es un delito que está sobre un supuesto; no es un delito que sea comprobable científicamente, porque no existen las herramientas suficientes para poder determinar quién transmitió o no a otra persona un virus”, explica en entrevista Leonardo Bastida, uno de los autores del análisis.

Bastida afirma que todavía existe mucha estigmatización hacia quienes viven con VIH o tiene alguna enfermedad relacionada con un virus, como es el caso del COVID-19.

“Esto genera que la gente tenga miedo a la situación, que no le interese diagnosticarse para evitarse problemas, porque de cierta manera al ver esto como algo malo, no se genera una conducta de responsabilidad, de un cuidado personal y colectivo”.

Al mismo tiempo, se inhibe también la generación de políticas de salud pública que deberían estar enfocadas en disminuir el número de nuevas infecciones; además se manda un mensaje de negatividad, culpabilidad y castigo, cuando con los avances científicos que existen hasta ahora, la mayoría de las personas que viven con VIH puede alcanzar la indetectabilidad y, por lo tanto, intransmisibilidad del virus.

“Hay códigos que son muy específicos, que si la enfermedad es contagiosa o pone en peligro la vida de las personas; se le ponen muchos adjetivos que no corresponden a una realidad, entonces se da esta imagen de asociarlo con algo malo y que la persona que vive con VIH, por ese simple hecho, es un factor de riesgo, cuando en realidad los factores de riesgo son otros; genera un mensaje contradictorio y un poco ambiguo para la sociedad”, añade Bastida.

La mayoría de los artículos en códigos penales que sancionan el delito de “peligro de contagio” entraron en vigor entre 1920 y 1930, es decir, tienen casi 100 años de existir.

En al menos siete estados, los casos han llegado a procesos judiciales a partir de la imputación de este delito: 15 en Veracruz, 14 en Sonora, cinco en Tamaulipas, cuatro en el Estado de México, tres en Chihuahua, uno en Nuevo León y uno en Ciudad de México.

“Las fiscalías, al verlo vigente en la ley, insisten en retomarlo; y muchas veces el argumento es que la transmisión es a propósito, situación que no puede descartarse, pero para eso ya existen dentro de los propios códigos penales los delitos de lesiones, entonces podría entrar una transmisión con alevosía en esos términos. Es más claro que dejar un delito ambiguo, que además solo se basa en presuposiciones”, detalla Bastida.

El peligro radica en que con el hecho de acusar a alguien del delito, si esa persona resulta reactiva en una prueba, es suficiente para procesarla judicialmente, cuando lo único que se está comprobando es su estado de salud, pero no si transmitió o no el VIH.

“Se está sancionando una suposición; y es importante entender que lo que estamos sancionando es una creencia, una hipótesis, pero no se están sancionando hechos concretos”, añade.

Impulsan trabajo con legislaturas locales

Antonio Matus, de la organización AHF, sostiene que la tendencia general en este momento es a penalizar, a sancionar por todo y a incrementar el número de delitos, por lo que cuando se elimina un tipo penal puede existir una percepción general de que hay injusticias, lo que podría explicar las resistencias en el ámbito legislativo para derogar este delito.

Actualmente la agrupación está trabajando en la incidencia legislativa para presentar iniciativas en Oaxaca, Veracruz y Guanajuato.

“Otros países ya han avanzado en este aspecto, y el propio programa conjunto de las Naciones Unidas para el VIH y el SIDA ha emitido varios boletines; en ellos, cuando se han derogado este tipo de disposiciones, ONUSIDA ha reconocido de manera pública estas acciones. Uno de los casos más recientes es en Colombia, en donde emitió una declaración de prensa donde agradece la decisión del tribunal constitucional de Colombia de revocar la sección del código penal que criminaliza la transmisión del VIH”, explicó Matus.

Haber concretado el análisis legislativo en un documento es muy importante porque se hacen recomendaciones tanto a las legislaturas estatales como al Congreso de la Unión para derogar las disposiciones penales y civiles que estigmatizan a las personas con VIH.

Del mismo modo, a la Secretaría de Salud federal y a CENSIDA se les recomienda que actualicen la NOM-010-SSA2-2010, en materia de prevención y control del VIH, que tiene más de 10 años. Dentro de ella, podría existir una previsión que evitara la criminalización con alcance a nivel federal, pues es de observancia obligatoria.

El 30 de abril de 2018, la Suprema Corte de Justicia de la Nación sentó un primer precedente contra la criminalización del VIH, cuando declaró inválida la porción del artículo 158 del código penal de Veracruz, que sanciona el delito de peligro de contagio, que refería específicamente a “infecciones de transmisión sexual u otras”.

Esa resolución se dio a partir de una acción de inconstitucionalidad promovida por la Comisión Nacional de los Derechos Humanos (CNDH) por la reforma legislativa que agregaba la referencia explícita al VIH, las infecciones de transmisión sexual y otras.

Para el estado de Nuevo León, aún está pendiente de resolución un recurso, promovido también por la CNDH, contra el artículo 337 bis, reformado en el contexto de la pandemia por COVID-19

En tanto, en la Ciudad de México, una iniciativa para derogar el delito peligro de contagio ha sido presentada tres veces ante el congreso local sin éxito.

Esto a partir de las manifestaciones y reclamos de organizaciones de la sociedad civil tras la difusión por parte de la Fiscalía capitalina de la detención de un hombre que vivía con VIH por el delito peligro de contagio el 4 de junio de 2021. Más tarde, fue liberado gracias a un amparo.

El Consejo para prevenir y eliminar la discriminación de la Ciudad de México estableció que la tipificación del peligro de contagio fomenta una narrativa de violencia y discriminación, y que el tipo penal representa una visión represora de la sexualidad, adelantando un castigo por el mero peligro con base en un prejuicio, lo cual obedece a un derecho penal ajeno al paradigma de los derechos humanos y contrario al principio de dignidad.

Para Matus, existen todos los elementos jurídicos y de política pública para derogar el delito. De lo contrario, si se traslada a otro tipo de enfermedades, este tipo de penal provocaría que la gente no se haga pruebas, oculte su diagnóstico y tema ser sancionado.

El activista sostiene que esto a nivel de salud pública, afecta a todas las personas, no solamente a quienes viven con VIH.

Este tipo de disposiciones, que quizá tengan la buena intención de evitar la trasmisión, ignoran los avances de la ciencia, pues el tratamiento antirretroviral en este momento aumenta las defensas de tal manera que la carga viral se reduce hasta la indetectabilidad, un estado en el que ya no se transmite el virus.

“Sin ánimo de señalar o criminalizar a las personas que se consideran víctimas de este tipo de delitos, consideramos que la opción para nuestra sociedad es la corresponsabilidad, que cada quien sepa, esté educado, reciba información y tome conciencia de qué puede pasar al momento de tener relaciones sexuales no protegidas”, concluye.

Canada: Ignoring request to wear condom violates consent and constitutes sexual assault

Breaking Agreement to Use a Condom Is a Sex Crime, Canada High Court Rules

The Supreme Court ruling is one of the strictest in a recent spate of measures addressing deceptive condom use, as courts try to define consent.

TORONTO — It is a crime to renege on a promise to wear a condom during sex without a partner’s knowledge or consent, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled this week.

The decision sends a British Columbia man back to trial for sexual assault, and sets legal precedent in Canada, further clarifying the law governing sexual consent in a country that has been raising the bar for it for decades.

“In no other jurisdiction in the world is it as clear that when someone has agreed to sex with a condom, and removed it without their consent, this constitutes sexual assault or rape,” said Lise Gotell, professor of women’s and gender studies at the University of Alberta, and an expert on sexual consent and Canadian law.

“The court says very clearly there is no consent in that circumstance — it doesn’t matter whether or not the non-consensual condom removal was overt, or if it was deceptive,” she added.

The case in question involves two people who interacted online in 2017, met in person to see if they were sexually compatible, and then met to have sex. The woman, whose name was shielded by a publication ban, had predicated her agreement to sex on the use of a condom. During one of two sexual encounters at that meeting, the accused man didn’t wear a condom, unknown to the woman, who later took preventive H.I.V. treatment.

The defendant, Ross McKenzie Kirkpatrick, was charged with sexual assault. However, the trial court judge dismissed the charge, accepting Mr. Kirkpatrick’s argument that the complainant had consented to the sexual relations, despite Mr. Kirkpatrick’s failure to wear a condom.

The ruling was overturned by the British Columbia Court of Appeal, which ordered a new trial. Mr. Kirkpatrick appealed that decision to the country’s top court, which heard arguments last November.

“Sexual intercourse without a condom is a fundamentally and qualitatively different physical act than sexual intercourse with a condom,” states the ruling, which was approved by a 5-4 vote by the court, and was released on Friday.

It adds, “Condom use cannot be irrelevant, secondary or incidental when the complainant has expressly conditioned her consent on it.”

Mr. Kirkpatrick’s lawyer said the new interpretation of the criminal code, which will be standard across the country, would drastically change the rules around sexual consent, making it almost like a binding contract that could be signed in advance.

“In Canada, consent is always in the moment. But what this decision does, it creates an element of consent far from the moment of sexual activity — in this case days or even a week before the sexual encounter,” said Phil Cote, a defense lawyer in Surrey, British Columbia.

“If there’s a moral to be taken from this for everyone, but particularly for men, is that you have to be sure there is active and engaged consent. And if you are not sure, you should ask,” he added. “But unfortunately, that’s not how sexual encounters go.”

Some studies show condom-use resistance has become widespread over the past decade, and significant numbers of women and men who have sex with men report having experienced partners removing condoms without their consent.

The practice, popularly known as “stealthing,” has become prevalent enough that some Canadian universities have incorporated it into their sexual violence prevention policies.

Last year, California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a bill into law which made stealthing illegal — a first in the United States. However, the law amended the state’s civil definition of sexual battery, offering victims grounds to sue their assailants for damages, but it didn’t alter the criminal code. Around the same time, the Legislative Assembly in the Australian Capital Territory, which includes Canberra, also passed new laws that define stealthing as an act of sexual assault.

Courts in Britain and Switzerland have convicted people of crimes for removing condoms during intercourse.

Canada has passed increasingly restrictive laws against sexual assault since 1983, when it amended its rape law by replacing rape with three criminal offenses that broaden the definition of sexual assault to include violent actions other than non-consensual penetration.

US: New study from the Williams Institute analyses data on HIV criminalization in Tennessee

Enforcement of HIV Criminalization in Tennessee

Tennessee’s two primary HIV criminalization laws—aggravated prostitution and criminal exposure—are considered a “violent sexual offense” and require a person convicted to register as a sex offender for life. Using data obtained from Tennessee’s sex offender registry, this study examines the enforcement of HIV criminalization laws in Tennessee from 1991 to 2022.

To read the full report, please go to: https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/publications/hiv-criminalization-tennessee/

El Salvador: Proposal to treat HIV and STI exposure as aggravating circumstance in cases of sexual assault

Automatic Google translation. For original article in Spanish, please scroll down.

Consciously transmitting diseases and drugging the victims should be an aggravating circumstance in crimes of rape, the Criminal Magistrate recommends to deputies

Judge Sandra Luz Chicas arrived this Friday at the Women’s Commission of the Assembly, to give her contributions for the amendment to Articles 158 and 162 of the Penal Code, proposed by the ruling party.

On March 8, within the framework of International Women’s Day, the New Ideas caucus presented a piece of correspondence containing a proposal to reform articles 158 and 162 of the Penal Code.

The objective of the initiative is to increase the sentence from 8 to 12 years in prison for rapists. Currently, the Penal Code punishes this crime with imprisonment from 6 to 10 years.

The motion of the Nuevas Ideas party contemplates aggravating circumstances that increase the penalty detailed in article 162 of the aforementioned regulations.

The pro-government deputies propose adding an aggravating circumstance when the violations are against older adults.

The modifications began to be studied within the Women’s Commission of the Assembly. In order to know her point of view, this Friday the presiding magistrate of the Criminal Chamber, Sandra Luz Chicas de Fuentes, was summoned.

At this point, the magistrate observed that the ruling party’s proposal does not take into account as a qualified aggravating circumstance, when the active subject of the crime, knowing that they have a contagious sexually transmitted disease or that they are carriers of AIDS or HIV, sexually assault a his victim.

“We have had many cases that at the time of the rape they have transmitted a venereal disease or AIDS or HIV, I do not see this as a qualified aggravating circumstance and many countries have it,” recommended Chicas de Fuentes.

Likewise, it specified that it has not been considered an aggravating circumstance when the aggressor intoxicates the person or the drug to facilitate the rape.

In addition, the magistrate observed that the typical behavior itself is not being touched. In this aspect, Chicas de Fuentes explained that there is rape if there is vice in consent, for example, she mentioned that there are cultural patterns that in some circumstances “re-victimize” the victim, wanting to make it appear that she was guilty of the rape.

“A person can be a sex worker, but if that person at the time of carnal access says no, and the (other) person continues, there is rape, care must be taken that there is no vice in consent,” he clarified.

Even, he said, someone can agree to have sex with another person, but suddenly regrets it and says no, they could even be naked, but if the other person continues, it is also rape.

Rape is also considered when the forced penetration occurs in one of the two cavities, be it the vagina or the anus, it is enough for it to be in one of them to constitute the crime, he added and said that in other countries a third is opened possibility, and it is the oral route.

He also spoke of other cases in which more than one person could participate in the act of rape.

“A person may be having carnal access with a woman, another holding her lower limbs and another the upper ones, even if they do not have carnal access, they are co-authors of the crime of rape,” he exemplified.

The magistrate was in favor of reforming the Penal Code, as she pointed out that sexual crimes occupy one of the first places in statistical data.

The president of the commission, Alexia Rivas, stated that within the aggravating circumstances, the fact that the victim becomes pregnant as a result of sexual assault could also be contemplated.

The magistrate gave a favorable opinion, because not only would the legal right of sexual freedom be violated, but it is “multi-offensive”, including the violation of other rights by forcing the victim to become a mother, a consequence that must be carried by all his life.

Despite the reforms, when looking at comparative law, according to information that Justice Chicas de Fuentes revealed in the commission, El Salvador would be one of the countries in the region with fewer years in prison for crimes of rape, only above from Guatemala.

Costa Rica applies a sentence of 10 to 16 years; in its article 156 of the Penal Code; Honduras between 9 to 13 years according to article 240 of the Penal Code; in Guatemala the sentence is from 5 to 8 years, stipulated in article 173 bis of the Penal Code; and in Mexico, there is a prison of 8 to 20 years, according to article 265 of the Federal Penal Code.

“In principle, I do support the reform proposal, but always inviting the issue of proportionality to be studied,” advocated the magistrate.

Transmitir enfermedades conscientemente y drogar a las víctimas debe ser agravante en delitos de violación, recomienda a diputados magistrada de lo Penal

La magistrada Sandra Luz Chicas llegó este viernes a la comisión de la Mujer de la Asamblea, a dar sus aportes para la enmienda a los Artículos 158 y 162 del Código Penal, propuesto por la  bancada oficialista.

El pasado 8 de marzo en el marco del Día Internacional de la Mujer, la bancada de Nuevas Ideas presentó una pieza de correspondencia conteniendo una propuesta para reformar los artículos 158 y 162 del Código Penal.

El objetivo de la iniciativa es incrementar la pena de entre 8 a 12 años de cárcel para los violadores. Actualmente, el Código Penal sanciona ese delito con prisión de 6 a 10 años.

La moción del partido Nuevas Ideas contempla agravantes que aumentan la pena detalladas en el artículo 162 de la normativa en mención.

Los diputados oficialistas proponen que se agregue una agravante cuando las violaciones sean en contra de personas adultas mayores.

Las modificaciones comenzaron a ser estudiadas en el seno de la Comisión de la Mujer de la Asamblea. Con el objetivo de conocer su punto de vista, este viernes fue citada la magistrada presidenta de la Sala de lo Penal, Sandra Luz Chicas de Fuentes.

En este punto, la magistrada observó que la propuesta del oficialismo no toma en cuenta como agravante cualificada, cuando el sujeto activo del delito, a sabiendas de que tiene una enfermedad contagiosa de transmisión sexual o que son portadores del SIDA o del VIH agreden sexualmente a su víctima.

“Hemos tenido muchos casos que al momento de la violación le han transmitido una enfermedad venérea o el SIDA o VIH, esta no la veo como una agravante cualificada y muchos países lo tienen”, recomendó Chicas de Fuentes.

Asimismo, especificó que no se ha considerado como agravante cuando el agresor embriaga a la persona o la droga para facilitar la violación sexual.

Además, la magistrada observó que no se está tocando la conducta típica en sí. En este aspecto Chicas de Fuentes detalló que hay violación si hay vicio en el consentimiento, por ejemplo, mencionó que hay patrones culturales que en algunas circunstancias “revictimizan” a la víctima, queriendo hacer ver que la culpable de la violación fue ella.

Cyprus: Decision to deport HIV positive student on the grounds of “carrying an infectious disease” is reversed

Deportation of HIV student halted after uproar

The civil registry and migration department on Saturday responded to being lambasted for ordering the deportation of a third-country student because he was HIV positive, saying they would be issuing him a residence permit under certain health conditions.

The Aids Solidarity Movement earlier in the day condemned the deportation order, labelling it an act of “severe discrimination” and calling for the reversal of the decision.

According to the statement, the student was informed by the civil registry and migration department on March 16 by letter that he would be deported on March 21 on the grounds of “carrying an infectious disease”.

The movement said that this decision completely ignored letters of support from both the Gregorios treatment centre and the Solidarity Movement itself, as well as the guidelines of the World Health Organisation, which state “that when a person living with HIV has an undetectable viral load, due to the effective medication they receive, they cannot transmit the virus, even through unprotected sex”.

“The student has access to medication from his country, does not burden the state in any way in relation to his antiretroviral treatment or medical supervision, and does not pose a risk to public health,” the statement added.

Moreover, with the student’s written consent, the movement sent his medical results, along with a note from Doctor Ioannis Demetriades, the head of the Gregorios Clinic and the head of the ministry of health’s HIV and Aids programme, to the migration department’s acting director, asking that the student be allowed to complete his studies.

“We denounce this serious discrimination based on the HIV status of an individual and demand the immediate change of the decision from all the competent bodies of the state that support human rights,” the statement concluded.

Later on Saturday a statement from the migration department said it would in the end be issuing the residence permit after receiving a confirmation from the competent medical services of the state that the student was not contagious.

The condition of the permit is that the student receive regular health checks at the Gregorios Clinic.

It added that it had only been following the law, which “prohibit entry into the country, or carry out deportations for those persons who are carriers or suffer from communicable or infectious diseases and which are a danger to public health”.

Russia: Court overturns decision of the Ministry of Justice to include NGO in “foreign agents” register for commenting on HIV criminalisation law

Court orders Ministry of Justice to remove “Humanitarian Action” charitable foundation from registry of “foreign agents”

St Petersburg City Court has ordered the Russian Ministry of Justice to remove the charitable foundation “Humanitarian Action” from the register of “foreign agents” NGOs. This was reported on the foundation’s Telegram channel.

“This is the first time in Russia that an NPO has been removed from the register under a court ruling without rejecting foreign funding,” the report said.

For now, the foundation remains on the register of “foreign agents” NGOs.

The St. Petersburg-based charity foundation Humanitarian Action works with drug users and people living with HIV. The organisation was declared a foreign agent in December 2020.

The Russian authorities decided that Humanitarian Action was engaged in “political activities”. Comments on amendments to the law “On the prevention of the spread of HIV infection in Russia” sent to the Ministry of Justice as part of an open public debate were cited as such.

According to OVDInfo, 220 non-profit organisations and unregistered public associations have been included in the register of “foreign agents” since 2012. Of these, 99 were removed from the list due to cessation of activities (liquidation or reorganisation), 40 due to cessation of foreign funding or political activities, five after a complaint about the unreasonableness or illegality of their inclusion in the register was satisfied, and one after property was returned to a foreign source.

Суд обязал Минюст исключить благотворительный фонд «Гуманитарное действие» из реестра «иноагентов»

Санкт-Петербургский городской суд обязал Минюст России исключить благотворительный фонд «Гуманитарное действие» из реестра НКО — «иностранных агентов». Об этом сообщили в телеграм-канале фонда.

«Это первое в России исключение НКО из реестра по судебному решению без отказа от иностранного финансирования», — говорится в сообщении.

Пока фонд остается в реестре НКО-«иноагентов».

Петербургский благотворительный фонд «Гуманитарное действие» работает с наркопотребителями и людьми с ВИЧ. Организацию объявили иностранным агентом в декабре 2020 года.

Российские власти решили, что «Гуманитарное действие» занимается «политической деятельностью». В качестве примера таковой, в частности, приводились комментарии о поправках в закон «О предупреждении распространения ВИЧ-инфекции в России», направленные в адрес Минюста в рамках открытых общественных обсуждений.

По данным «ОВД-Инфо», с 2012 года в реестр НКО-«иностранных агентов» включили 220 некоммерческих организаций и незарегистрированных общественных объединений. Из них 99 были исключены из списка в связи с прекращением деятельности (ликвидация или реорганизация), 40 — из-за прекращения иностранного финансирования или политической деятельности, пять — после удовлетворения жалобы на необоснованность или незаконность включения в реестр, одна — после возврата имущества иностранному источнику.

Belarus: Eurasian Women’s AIDS Network submits list of issues on the implementation of CEDAW as it relates to women living with HIV

List of Issues on the implementation of the CEDAW by the Republic of Belarus  as it relates to women living with HIV submitted for the consideration at the 83rd Pre-Sessional Working Group of the UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women – Geneva, Switzerland, 28 February – 4 March 2022

Prepared by the Eurasian Women’s Network on AIDS

  1. The Eurasian Women’s Network on AIDS brings together activists and women-led organizations from 12 countries of Eastern Europe and Central Asia to improve access to healthcare services for women living with HIV and vulnerable to HIV, to protect them from violence, and provide inclusive involvement of them in public debate, on which their lives and health depend.
  2. This submission focuses on the following issues – harmful effects of the legally enshrined criminal prosecution of women living with HIV (criminalization of HIV exposure, non-disclosure and transmission), ministerial and inter-agency practices that exacerbate the situation of women living with HIV, women who use drugs, diagnosis disclosure, violence against women.

The full submission is available for download in English and in Russian from the UN Treaty Body Database.

 

 

Kenya: Attorney General urges the Court to dismiss petition challenging the constitutionality of HIV criminalisation statute

AG opposes suit seeking to decriminalise deliberate HIV transmission

The law says any person who deliberately infects another with life threatening STD is guilty of an offence.

Attorney-General Paul Kihara Kariuki wants the High Court to dismiss a petition that seeks to decriminalise deliberate transmission of HIV or any other life-threatening sexually transmitted disease.

He says the petition filed by six people living with HIV/Aids lacks merit since the law that is being challenged, Section 26 of the Sexual Offences Act, is necessary to curb the spread of the disease.

“In examining the purpose, effect, historical background behind the enactment of the disputed law, and the intention of the legislature, we urge the court to take judicial notice of the fact that Kenya and in general Africa, continues to be ravaged by the scourge despite the scientific gains that have been made towards reducing the mortality rate,” states the AG.

“By passing the disputed law the Legislature was not acting in a vacuum but responding to a situation in which the State needed to intervene”.

The law says any person who deliberately and intentionally infects another with HIV or any other life threatening sexually transmitted disease is 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 15 years but which may be enhanced for life.

It also allows the taking and storage of samples, such as blood and urine, from those accused of spreading life threatening sexually transmitted diseases until the finalisation of the criminal case.

The said law also provides that any person who hinders or obstructs the taking of an appropriate samples from the accused is guilty of an offence of obstructing the cause of justice.

Upon conviction, such a person is liable to imprisonment for a term of not less than five years or to a fine of at least Sh50,000

The petitioners argue that the law creates criminal sanctions and punishes persons living with HIV and is thus unconstitutional for violating their rights, such as the right to freedom from discrimination.

Criminal sanctions are not of any use in the reduction of transmission of HIV and are wholly inappropriate where a person does not know he or she is HIV positive or does not understand how HIV is transmitted. Laws such as Section 26 of the Sexual Offences Act merely increases stigma and discrimination of people living with HIV and makes it less likely that they will pursue health affirming behaviour,” state the petitioners.

They also argue that the law limits the right of people living with HIV to consensually start a family with any person of their choice who is not infected with the virus. They said the law is being used to harm persons living with HIV.

Section 26 fails to consider the scientific gains made in the fight against HIV, where there are treatments that suppress the viral load of an infected person to the extent of rendering the chances of transmission to be extremely low or all together nonexistent,” they argue.

But the AG argues that the rights of persons living or affected by HIV are not absolute and that this must be weighed and interpreted with limitations provided under the Constitution.

Mr Kihara says the disputed section of the law only prohibits deliberate transmission of HIV and does not create an obligation to persons who suffer from HIV/Aids to disclose their status to their sexual partners, thereby maintaining their right to privacy.

He states that the law was enacted to protect the vulnerable population of young girls and women.

A declaration of unconstitutionality of the impugned law will undermine public health goals and create a legal vacuum in enforcement of laws protecting persons from deliberate HIV transmission. In light of such legal vacuum, the general public and more particularly the vulnerable population stands to suffer irreparable loss,” says the AG.

We humbly call on this court to breathe life into Section 26 of the Sexual Offences Act and not to stifle the intention of the law maker.

While referring to data from the National Aids Control Council (an Interested Party in the case), state counsel Gracie Mutindi told the court that 21,000 Kenyans (4,333 children and 16,664 adults) die of HIV related causes every year.

It is her position that the disputed law neither constitutes discrimination against people living with HIV simply due to their health status nor does it violate a patient’s right to privacy. Furthermore, the right to privacy is not absolute.

She also denied the petitioners’ allegations that the disputed law violates their right to dignity, freedom from cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment by the manner in which it authorises the taking of blood, urine or tissue samples from persons suspected to have infected another with HIV or any other life threatening sexually transmitted disease.

The taking of blood, urine or any other medical or forensic evidence as provided is not done for sadistic pleasure. It is rather aimed at ensuring that all material is availed to enable the court reach a just determination,” states Ms Mutindi

She contends that the right to privacy cannot be used as a tool for circumventing a just legal process intended to prove an offence. The case will be mentioned on February 10.

By Joseph Wangui

[Update]US: New Jersey Governor signs new law repealing old HIV criminalisation statute

New Jersey Repeals Outdated HIV Crime Laws and Fights Stigma

The new law “is a step in the right direction toward reforming the system” regarding HIV and STI prosecutions in New Jersey.

In January, New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy signed legislation that decriminalizes sexual activity by people living with HIV or a sexually transmitted infection (STI) in specific instances. What’s more, the law tackles HIV stigma because it requires that whenever a person is prosecuted under appropriate circumstances, the names of both the accused and the accuser be kept confidential.

The summary of the legislation—S3707/A5673—reads: “Repeals statute criminalizing sexual penetration while infected with venereal disease or HIV under certain circumstances; requires that in prosecutions for endangering another by creating substantial risk of transmitting infectious disease, name of defendant and other person be kept confidential.”

The legislation’s primary sponsors included Senators Joe Vitale (D–Middlesex) and M. Teresa Ruiz (D–Essex) and Assembly Members Valerie Vainieri Huttle and Joann Downey, according to a press release from Governor Murphy.

“Unfortunately, over the years, there has been a culture of criminally targeting HIV-positive individuals in general, rather than targeting those who intentionally expose others. The criminal code is meant to punish actions that harm others, not discriminate against people living with a chronic health condition,” Senator Ruiz said in the press release. “Signing this piece of legislation into law is a step in the right direction toward reforming the system.”

HIV criminalization refers to the use of laws to target people who have HIV—notably African-American, Latino and LGBTQ populations—and punishing them because of their HIV status, not because of their actions. Under outdated laws, people with HIV can be sentenced to prison in cases where HIV was not transmitted, simply for allegedly not disclosing their status.

Of note, repealing HIV laws does not mean that people can’t be held accountable for intentionally transmitting HIV. Other laws may apply to the situation.

“Hyacinth AIDS Foundation applauds Governor Murphy signing S3707/A-5673, which would repeal New Jersey specific HIV criminalization statute. New Jersey’s HIV criminal law was based on stigma and fear, rather than modern science,” Axel Torres Marrero, Hyacinth’s senior director of public policy and prevention, said in the press release. “In 2022 it no longer reflects the current science of treatment and transmission of HIV. Today we recognize that no one should be singled out and punished solely on the basis of their HIV status. Taken together with the attorney general’s recent guidance that only a clear, successful intent to do harm should be punished, today New Jersey acknowledges that health care policy and the fight to end the AIDS epidemic must be anchored in the updated science of treatment and transmission of HIV.”

Marrero was referring to HIV-related guidance issued in October by Andrew Buck, who was the acting attorney general at the time. When deciding whether to charge someone under the state’s HIV crime laws, Buck directed prosecutors to consider three factors:

  • Whether the individual forced or coerced their partner to engage in sexual activity;
  • Whether the individual engaged in sexual activity for the purpose of transmitting HIV to their partner; and/or
  • Whether the individual was adhering to a medically appropriate HIV treatment plan at the time of the sexual activity.

“It is virtually impossible,” the guidance states, “to imagine a scenario where it would be appropriate for a prosecutor to charge an individual…when that person’s HIV viral load was undetectable at the time of the sexual activity and no aggravating factors existed.”

One of the goals of the new HIV law and the guidance is to base possible prosecutions on updated science, notably that people with HIV who take meds and maintain an undetectable viral load do not transmit HIV sexually, a fact referred to as Undetectable Equals Untransmittable, or U=U.

Another goal is to fight HIV stigma and encourage testing and treatment. “For decades, the HIV epidemic has had devastating effects on New Jersey, particularly in our LGBTQ+ communities and communities of color,” the governor said in the press release. “Repealing the outdated law will eliminate the stigma and fear associated with testing for HIV and other sexually transmitted infections, encouraging more individuals to be proactive in learning about their health. This new law, coupled with advances in modern science and medicine, will bolster our efforts to end the HIV/AIDS epidemic in New Jersey.”

In related news, New Jersey also passed a series of harm reduction laws. One allows more syringe exchanges to open; another makes it legal to possess a syringe; and a third creates a review panel to study overdoses.

New Jersey isn’t the only state to decriminalize HIV. Last year, Illinois became the second state to repeal its discriminatory HIV laws (California did so in 2017). And lawmakers in Missouri, Nevada and Virginia have reformed similar laws. For more, see “Breaking HIV Laws: A Roundup of Efforts to Decriminalize HIV.”

Published in Insider NJ on 11/01/2022

Legislation to modernise criminalisation law passed by New Jersey Senate

Senate Passes Vitale-Ruiz Bill to Modernize NJ Statutes Related to HIV/AIDS Transmission

Trenton – In an effort to modernize New Jersey’s statutes related to the transmission of HIV/AIDS and reduce the stigma suffered by individuals living with HIV/AIDS and other sexually transmitted infections (STI), legislation sponsored by Senators Joe Vitale and M. Teresa Ruiz that would eliminate crimes that are solely applicable to individuals living with HIV/AIDS and STIs was passed by the Senate.

The bill, S-3707, would repeal current statutes that make it a crime for a person to commit an act of sexual penetration under certain circumstances while knowing that he or she is infected with a venereal disease, HIV, or AIDS. The bill maintains and updates the provisions of the statute that criminalizes endangering another person, therefore maintaining an avenue for prosecution in appropriate cases involving the transmission of non-airborne infectious or communicable diseases, without specifically targeting individuals living with HIV/AIDs and sexually transmitted infections.

“While working with advocates to identify areas to improve our harm reduction system of care, they identified updating these statutes to reflect what we now know about the transmission of certain diseases, especially in light in the advances in treatment, as a huge priority,” said Senator Joe Vitale (D- Middlesex). “The current law serves only to criminalize some of our most vulnerable populations, primarily those with HIV, dismissing what we know about the treatment of HIV and how it is and can be transmitted. I am thankful to the advocates who brought this issue to our attention, not only for leading the way on solid public health policy, but also in serving those in need in New Jersey.”

The current laws in place target individuals based on their HIV/AIDS status, rather than their actions. They disproportionately impact certain communities that are more likely to be living with the virus including members of the LGBTQ+ community, Black and Latinx people and transgender women. The new legislation will work to remove the negative stigma and criminalization that these communities and others currently face.

“This legislation is a step in the right direction of inclusivity and removing the stigmatization that surrounds individuals living with HIV. Over the years, there has been criminalization targeting HIV-positive individuals, rather than those who are intentionally harming others,” said Senator Ruiz (D-Essex). “The criminal code is meant to punish actions that harm others, not discriminate against people living with a chronic health condition.”

The bill passed the Senate by a vote of (25-11).

Russia: Laws that restrict migrants with HIV and deny them medical care increases the burden on the health care system

Legal barriers to migrants with HIV are not working

Automated translation via Deepl.com. For original article in Russian, please scroll down.

Laws that restrict the stay of foreign nationals with HIV, as well as the denial of free medical care, may be one of the causes of a hidden epidemic, writes the EECA Regional Platform.

The Regional Expert Group on Migrant Health conducted research in two EECA countries, Armenia and Uzbekistan. The aim was to identify the legal barriers to HIV faced by citizens of the countries who have returned from migration.

Challenges for migrants with HIV

Social isolation and stigmatization, lack of permanent relationships, language barriers, unstable material resources, and limited access to health care services are the main challenges faced by labour migrants with HIV.

Inability to obtain a legal patent because of HIV infection leads to administrative offences:

  • Among migrants: illegal labour activities, commercial sex services
    Among the citizens of host countries: illegal sale of patents and HIV certificates etc.

The problem with getting ARV treatment leads to resistance and a general deterioration of the health of migrants living with HIV. This ultimately increases the burden on the health care system: patients’ opportunistic infections need to be intensified, ART regimens need to be changed, etc. Moreover, returning migrants contribute to the spread of HIV in their home countries.

Currently, the Russian Federation, which receives the largest number of migrants from the EECA region, is one of 19 countries that restrict the stay of foreign nationals with HIV. People living with HIV entering Russia specify visiting relatives, tourism/travel or medical treatment as the purpose, rather than employment.

At the end of 2021, a law came into force in the Russian Federation which requires foreign nationals to be tested for HIV, banned substances and dangerous infectious diseases every 3 months. But foreign business associations, as well as the media, have reacted quite sharply to the Russian law. The business community sent a letter to the Russian Government asking it to simplify the rules and not to subject highly qualified specialists to testing.

Законодательные барьеры для мигрантов с ВИЧ не работают

Законы, которые ограничивают пребывание в стране иностранных граждан с ВИЧ, а также отказ в бесплатной медицинской помощи, могут быть одной из причин скрытой эпидемии, пишет Региональная Платформа ВЕЦА.

Региональная экспертная группа по здоровью мигрантов провела исследование в двух странах ВЕЦА — Армении и Узбекистане. Целью было определить правовые барьеры в связи с ВИЧ, с которыми сталкиваются граждане стран, вернувшиеся из миграции.

Проблемы мигрантов с ВИЧ

Социальная изоляция и стигматизация, отсутствие постоянных отношений, языковой барьер, нестабильный материальный уровень, ограниченный доступ к медицинским услугам — основные проблемы, с которыми сталкиваются трудовые мигранты с ВИЧ.

Невозможность получения легального патента из-за наличия ВИЧ-инфекции ведет к административным правонарушениям:

  • среди мигрантов: незаконная трудовая деятельность, коммерческие секс-услуги;
    среди граждан принимающей страны: нелегальная продажа патентов и сертификатов об отсутствии ВИЧ-инфекции и т.д.

Проблема с получением АРВ-терапии приводит к резистентности и общему ухудшению здоровья мигрантов, живущих с ВИЧ. Это в конечном итоге повышает нагрузку на систему здравоохранения: необходимо усиливать лечение оппортунистических инфекций пациентов, менять схему АРВТ и т.д. Более того, вернувшиеся домой мигранты способствуют распространению ВИЧ в своих странах.

В настоящее время Российская Федерация, принимающая наибольшее количество мигрантов из региона ВЕЦА, является одной из 19 стран, которые ограничивают пребывание иностранных граждан с ВИЧ. Люди, живущие с ВИЧ, въезжая в Россию, указывают в качестве цели не трудоустройство, а посещение родственников, туризм/путешествие или лечение.

В конце 2021 года в РФ вступил в силу закон, согласно которому иностранные граждане обязаны каждые 3 месяца сдавать анализ на ВИЧ, запрещенные вещества и опасные инфекционные заболевания. Но зарубежные бизнес-ассоциации, а также СМИ достаточно остро отреагировали на российский закон. Бизнес-сообщество направило письмо в Правительство РФ с просьбой упростить правила и не подвергать проверке высококвалифицированных специалистов.