New IAPAC guidelines to achieving 90-90-90 targets recommend ending HIV criminalisation

New guidelines from the International Association of Providers of AIDS Care (IAPAC) are the first to highlight that HIV criminalisation is a critical barrier to optimising the HIV care continuum.

Currently only half of people living with HIV globally are aware of their status. Of the remaining 50% many are not yet engaged in care, receiving antiretroviral therapy (ART) in a timely manner or – the ultimate goal of HIV treatment and prevention – achieving sustained viral suppression.

These new guidelines are the first to include HIV criminalisation as one of eight key critical barriers that prevent people living with HIV from enjoying both the therapeutic and preventive effects of ART.

Screenshot 2015-11-06 11.49.50In many settings, optimizing the HIV care environment may be the most important action to ensure that there are meaningful increases in the number of people who are tested for HIV, linked to care, started on ART if diagnosed to be HIV positive, and assisted to achieve and maintain long-term viral suppression. Overcoming the legal, social, environmental, and structural barriers that limit access to the full range of services across the HIV care continuum requires multistakeholder engagement, diversified and inclusive strategies, and innovative approaches. Addressing laws that criminalize the conduct of key populations and supporting interventions that reduce HIV-related stigma and discrimination are also critically important. People living with HIV also require support through peer counseling, education, and navigation mechanisms, and their self-management skills reinforced by strengthening HIV literacy across the continuum of care.

The full HIV criminalisation recommendation (Recommendation 2) is below.

  • Recommendation 2: Laws that criminalize the conduct of PLHIV based on perceived exposure to HIV, and without any evidence of intent to do harm, are not recommended and should be repealed where they have been enacted. (A IV)

Numerous countries have enacted laws that criminalize behaviors associated with HIV exposure, many of which pose a low or negligible HIV transmission risk. No differences in behavior have been noted between settings that enact such laws and those that do not. Many of these laws do not take into account measures that reduce HIV transmissibility, including condom use, and were enacted before the preventive benefit of ART or antiretroviral (ARV)-based preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) was fully characterized. Most PLHIV who know their status take steps to prevent transmitting HIV to others.HIV-specific laws thus primarily exacerbate HIV-related stigma and decrease HIV service uptake.

IAPAC Guidelines for Optimizing the HIV Care Continuum for Adults and Adolescents

Australia: Academic article explores the prevention impact of treatment on criminal 'exposure' laws and prosecutions

Evidence that treating people with HIV early in infection prevents transmission to sexual partners has reframed HIV prevention paradigms. The resulting emphasis on HIV testing as part of prevention strategies has rekindled the debate as to whether laws that criminalise HIV transmission are counterproductive to the human rights-based public health response. It also raises normative questions about what constitutes ‘safe(r) sex’ if a person with HIV has undetectable viral load, which has significant implications for sexual practice and health promotion. This paper discusses a recent high-profile Australian case where HIV transmission or exposure has been prosecuted, and considers how the interpretation of law in these instances impacts on HIV prevention paradigms. In addition, we consider the implications of an evolving medical understanding of HIV transmission, and particularly the ability to determine infectiousness through viral load tests, for laws that relate to HIV exposure (as distinct from transmission) offences. We conclude that defensible laws must relate to appreciable risk. Given the evidence that the transmissibility of HIV is reduced to negligible level where viral load is suppressed, this needs to be recognised in the framing, implementation and enforcement of the law. In addition, normative concepts of ‘safe(r) sex’ need to be expanded to include sex that is ‘protected’ by means of the positive person being virally suppressed. In jurisdictions where use of a condom has previously mitigated the duty of the person with HIV to disclose to a partner, this might logically also apply to sex that is ‘protected’ by undetectable viral load.

Prison time for HIV?

Prison time for HIV? It’s possible in Veracruz

El Daily Post, August 6th 2015

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

UNAIDS Reference Group on HIV and Human Rights updates statement on HIV testing to include the “key trend” of “prolific unjust criminal laws and prosecutions”

The UNAIDS Reference Group on HIV and Human Rights has updated its statement on HIV testing  — which continues to emphasise that human rights, including the right to informed consent and confidentiality, not be sacrifced in the pursuit of 90-90-90 treatment targets — in the light of “three key trends that have emerged since the last statement regarding HIV testing was issued by the UNAIDS Reference Group (in 2007).”

One of these is “prolific unjust criminal laws and prosecutions, including the criminalization of HIV non-disclosure, exposure, and transmission.” The other two involve the recognition that HIV treatment is also prevention, and policies that aim to “end the AIDS epidemic as a public health threat by 2030.”

This statement is an important policy document that can be used to argue that public health goals and human rights goals are not mutually exclusive.

The Reference Group was established in 2002 to advise the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) on all matters relating to HIV and human rights. It is also fully endorsed by by the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria Human Rights Reference Group.

This statement is issued at a time when UNAIDS and the Global Fund are renewing their strategies for 2016–2021 and 2017–2021, respectively.

To support these processes, the Reference Groups offer the following three key messages:

1. There is an ongoing, urgent need to increase access to HIV testing and counselling, as testing rates remain low in many settings. The Reference Groups support such efforts unequivocally and encourage the provision of multiple HIV testing settings and modalities, in particular those that integrate HIV testing with other services.

2. Simply increasing the number of people tested, and/or the number of times people test, is not enough, for many reasons. Much greater efforts need to be devoted to removing barriers to testing or marginalized and criminalized populations, and to link those tested with prevention and treatment services and successfully keep them in treatment.

3. Public health objectives and human rights principles are not mutually exclusive. HIV testing that violates human rights is not the solution. A “fast-track” response to HIV depends on the articulation of testing and counselling models that drastically increase use of HIV testing, prevention, treatment, and support services, and does so in ways that foster human rights protection, reduce stigma and discrimination, and encourage the sustained and supported engagement of those directly affected by HIV.

The section on HIV criminalisation is quoted below.

The criminalization of HIV non-disclosure, exposure, and transmission is not a new phenomenon, but the vigour with which governments have pursued criminal responses to alleged HIV exposures — at the same time as our understanding of HIV prevention and treatment has greatly advanced, and despite evidence that criminalization is not an effective public health response — causes considerable concern to HIV and human right advocates. In the last decade, many countries have enacted HIV-specifc laws that allow for overly broad criminalization of HIV non-disclosure, exposure, and transmission. This impetus seems to be “driven by the wish to respond to concerns about the ongoing rapid spread of HIV in many countries, coupled by what is perceived to be a failure of existing HIV prevention efforts.” In some instances, particularly in Africa, these laws have come about as a response to women being infected with HIV through sexual violence, or by partners who had not disclosed their HIV status.

Emerging evidence confrms the multiple implications of the criminalization of HIV non-disclosure, exposure, and transmission for HIV testing and counselling. For example, HIV criminalization can have the effect of deterring some people from getting tested and finding out their HIV status. The possibility of prosecution, alongside the intense stigma fuelled by criminalization, is good reason for some to withhold information from service providers or to avoid prevention services, HIV testing, and/or treatment. Indeed, in jurisdictions with HIV-specific criminal laws, HIV testing counsellors are often obliged to caution people that getting an HIV test will expose them to criminal liability if they find out they are HIV-positive and continue having sex. They may also be forced to provide evidence of a person’s HIV status in a criminal trial. This creates distrust in relationships between people living with HIV and their health care providers, interfering with the delivery of quality health care and frustrating efforts to encourage people to come forward for testing.

The full statement, with references, can be downloaded here and is embedded below.

HIV TESTING AND COUNSELLING: New technologies, increased urgency, same human rights

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Malawi: High Court rules that mandatory HIV testing is unconstitutional

By Anneke Meerkotter, Southern Africa Litigation Centre (SALC) and Ian Southey-Swartz, Open Society Initiative for Southern Africa (OSISA)

In 2009, a group of women, presumed to be sex workers, was as part of a police sweeping exercise in Mwanza, Malawi. The women were taken to the Mwanza District Hospital where they were tested for HIV without their knowledge or consent, and in contravention of Malawi’s HIV policy. The women were then taken to the Mwanza Magistrates’ Court where some were charged with and convicted of “spreading venereal disease (HIV)”.

In 2011, eleven of these women filed an application in the Blantyre High Court challenging their subjection to mandatory HIV tests and the public disclosure of their HIV status in open court. The women argued that these actions by government officials violated their constitutional rights. Justice Dorothy nyaKaunda Kamanga handed down judgment on 20 May 2015.

Reading her judgment in court, Justice nyaKaunda Kamanga, said that forced HIV testing amounted to a violation of the applicants’ constitutional rights, including their right to privacy; their right to non-discrimination; their right to freedom from cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment; and their right to dignity. Justice Kamanga went a step further and requested a copy of the criminal court records in order to review the sentence the magistrate imposed on the applicants.

The case is illustrative of how the criminal justice system often impedes on accused persons’ rights to dignity, a fair trial and access to justice. In the present case, the matter was repeatedly delayed, including due to high caseloads and industrial action by judiciary personnel.

The judgment comes in the context of other important developments in Malawi. Civil society activists have increasingly voiced their concerns about the manner in which sex workers are treated by the police. Police often arbitrarily arrest women presumed to be sex workers during sweeping exercises and misguidedly and unlawfully charge them with offences such as being a rogue and vagabond or living off the earnings of prostitution, when there is no evidence of such offences having been committed. Such arrests inevitably involve a range of human rights violations.

The attitudes displayed by police towards alleged sex workers also extend to how some policy-makers view sex workers in Malawi. The HIV and AIDS (Prevention and Management) Bill of 2013, currently prohibits compulsory HIV testing, but allows forced HIV testing for specific groups of people, including commercial sex workers. In contrast, this case highlights the human rights violations caused by mandatory HIV testing and the importance of having legislation which prohibits this. This is an important message at a time when the Malawi government engages in final deliberations on the proposed Bill.

The case shows that it is possible for vulnerable groups to hold the government accountable when their rights have been violated. It is hoped that the judgment, once available, will be used as a resource by other marginalized groups to assert their rights and will contribute to improving constitutional jurisprudence in the region.

Canada: Mainstream magazine covers the problematic link between 'treatment as prevention' and overly broad HIV criminalisation

Transmission Control

HIV non-disclosure laws do more harm than good

By
From the June 2015 magazine

Testing HIV positive is no longer a death sentence—a fact that stands as one of the great medical achievements of the twentieth century. The United Nations aims to diagnose 90 percent of all HIV infections worldwide by 2020, deliver antiretroviral therapy to 90 percent of those who test positive, and suppress the virus in 90 percent of those treated. If these goals are met, the AIDS epidemic could be over by 2030.

The UN strategy owes a significant debt to Canadian research—particularly that of Julio Montaner, who was among the first scientists to establish highly active antiretroviral therapy as the standard of care for HIV, back in the mid-1990s. Sustained use of HAART suppresses the virus’s ability to replicate, eventually decreasing the concentration of HIV cells in the blood to undetectable levels and delaying the onset of symptoms and eventual progression to AIDS.

Regrettably, our legal system has not kept pace with these advances.

Montaner conducts his research in Vancouver, which was among the hardest-hit communities in North America in the early ’90s. The British Columbia government soon became an enthusiastic supporter of HAART and quickly rolled out antiretroviral-therapy coverage across the province. Between 1996 and 2009, the number of people taking HAART increased more than sixfold. Accordingly, the rate of AIDS-related deaths in the province plummeted 80 percent.

In their efforts to treat the virus, the researchers had stumbled upon a way to control its spread, too: when antiretroviral treatment reduces the virus in a patient’s bloodstream, it also reduces the virus to undetectable levels in sexual fluids and dramatically decreases the risk of transmission. Studies indicate that, among gay men, an undetectable viral load decreases the risk for unprotected receptive anal sex from 1.4 percent to almost zero. When it comes to the spread of HIV, a low viral load (between zero and 0.05 viral copies per millilitre) is more effective at preventing transmission than wearing a condom is.

Once the epicentre for new cases, BC has been enormously successful at controlling the HIV epidemic, using this Treatment as Prevention strategy, or TasP. The rate of new infections is now below the Canadian average. For the past decade, Montaner has been calling for national and international prevention strategies modelled on BC’s success with TasP. But what seems like sound medical advice could inadvertently put Canadian patients at legal risk. This is because we have one of the most aggressive legal approaches to HIV non-disclosure in the world. We are second only to the US in prosecutions.

HIV-positive Canadians who don’t reveal their status before they have intercourse can be charged with aggravated sexual assault. Conviction carries with it a maximum sentence of life in prison and a mandatory listing on the national registry of sex offenders. Between 1989 and early 2015, 176 people, in 188 separate cases, were prosecuted for non-disclosure, and more than half of the cases led to conviction.

Yet many of those convicted did not transmit the virus to the plaintiff. To be found guilty, a defendant need only have knowingly exposed his or her partner to what the courts deem a “realistic possibility” of transmission. Since there are no prosecutorial guidelines that define a low viral load, interpretations vary widely from case to case. And so it is possible that a properly medicated HIV-positive sexual partner might be convicted under the law, even if his viral load is so low as to reduce the possibility of transmission to a statistically negligible level.

The non-disclosure law originated with the 1998 Supreme Court decision in R v. Cuerrier, at a time when death rates were skyrocketing and policy-makers were scaling up testing and treatment. Proponents of the law argue that it helps protect people from malicious exposure to HIV.

The feeling on the ground is very different: since the law punishes only those who knowingly put partners at risk, it might encourage some at-risk Canadians to remain ignorant about their medical status. Evidence is sparse when it comes to this chilling effect, but even researchers such as Montaner agree that the law “creates a counterproductive environment.”

There is also a growing number of allegations that health authorities have not been forthcoming when it comes to informing patients of the legal risks associated with being HIV positive. Though BC’s 2014 testing guidelines lay out explicitly the requirement for informed consent, they don’t advise practitioners to address the issue of non-disclosure criminalization before testing. The province’s public-health officer, Perry Kendall, says this is intentional. Public-health practitioners are not legal experts, he says, noting that the longer and more complex the preliminary conversation, the less likely the patient will be to go through with testing.

While there is little systematic collection of information about testing experiences, Micheal Vonn of the BC Civil Liberties Association says she has received a number of complaints from patients, particularly pregnant women, who claim they were tested without consent. Vonn, alarmed by these allegations, plans to investigate further.

Another human-rights advocate, Richard Elliott of the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network, believes clearer guidelines are essential to ensuring that those who are tested are sufficiently aware of the legal risks. He notes that physicians’ records have been subpoenaed in court to support convictions for non-disclosure.

The unfortunate irony here is that the very laws intended to prevent further transmission of HIV may actually promote its spread—by discouraging testing and, by extension, impeding the work of the successful TasP program. Seventeen years after the Supreme Court’s 1998 decision, Canadian lawmakers must ensure that our policy of criminalizing non-disclosure does not serve to punish those who opt for life-saving HIV therapy and treatment.