Uganda: Uganda faces a choice between scientific progress and harmful criminalisation

Uganda’s HIV future needs laws advancing progress, not repeating past

OPINION

By Belinda Agnes Namutebi

Imagine a truck arriving at your warehouse with goods you know you desperately need. They align with the future you have projected. They represent freedom, protection, and progress. They carry value that will transform your operations for years to come. But as you stand there receiving these goods, grateful for their arrival, you remain wary of a roadblock just outside your gate. A hindrance with the power to undo everything you have procured. An obstacle that does not care how far the goods have travelled or how important they are for your future.

That roadblock is Uganda’s outdated HIV & AIDS Prevention and Control Act.

Despite the funding disruptions that have threatened Uganda’s health system this year, we have been listed among the countries to receive support from the Global Fund and the United States government for the rollout of long-acting Lenacapavir, the twice-yearly injection that offers six months of protection against HIV.

Science has delivered an HIV prevention tool that complements the options Uganda already has, such as the ABC approach, oral PrEP, the dapivirine ring, and long-acting Cabotegravir. Lenacapavir offers six months of protection, which means that people at risk of HIV no longer need to take a daily pill. This convenience reduces the pill burden, which may in turn improve adherence, strengthen continuity of prevention, and ultimately lower new HIV infections, contributing to a better quality of life.

Lenacapavir is also discreet and offers genuine choice. Young women and girls who are exposed to HIV can now select a method that fits their realities. That freedom of choice is empowering, and it naturally reduces stigma because prevention becomes a private, dignified, and self-directed decision.

The economic benefit of Lenacapavir for Uganda’s health budget is significant. Every infection prevented is a treatment avoided. The more people who remain HIV-free because of long-acting prevention, the fewer resources the country will spend on lifelong HIV treatment.

Now this science arrives in Uganda and meets a law that criminalises having HIV. A law like this creates fear, which means people avoid testing because they do not want to be labelled criminals. When the law makes testing feel dangerous, people stay away from the very services that are meant to help them. If they do not test, they will not know their status. And if they do not know their status, they cannot make informed decisions about whether to start HIV treatment or whether to use HIV prevention tools, especially if they are at risk.

Science has already provided these tools: treatment that suppresses the virus, and prevention options that protect people before exposure. But without testing, none of this reaches the people who need it. Lack of testing also reduces disclosure, breaks trust, and eventually affects adherence because people operate in secrecy instead of safety.

The result is that the law ends up keeping people away from the systems that could protect them. Instead of slowing HIV transmission, it drives it underground. Instead of supporting prevention, it actively undermines it. The law creates the very silence that science is trying to break.

Uganda now stands at a moment when science is offering us a new beginning. Long-acting prevention is here. Global partners are ready. Communities are ready. Young women are ready. The only part of the system still living in 2014 is the law. If we want the goods at our warehouse to reach the people they are intended for, we must clear the road ahead.

As Uganda moves toward the polls to choose a new Parliament, this cannot be a forgotten issue. The HIV legislation must be at the top of the legislative agenda. Our next Parliament must decide whether Uganda will move forward with science or remain anchored to a past that no longer protects us.

From Courtrooms to Communities:
Funding Advocacy to Sustain HIV Responses

Our Executive Director’s remarks on today’s webinar aimed at philanthropic funders, convened by Funders Concerned About AIDS.

Today, I’ll be connecting two major forces shaping the global HIV response: the wave of criminalisation targeting people living with HIV, people most vulnerable to HIV, and their advocacy organisations, as well as the expanding reach and impact of the Global Gag Order.

Both of these reflect the same problem – the use of law and policy to control bodies, silence communities, and restrict access to health and rights. By the end of this webinar, I hope it will be crystal clear why funding advocacy remains the single highest-impact investment funders can make.

The HIV Justice Network, which I lead, works to end the unjust use of criminal law against people living with HIV worldwide. We document laws and cases, support and train advocates, and co-ordinate the HIV JUSTICE WORLDWIDE coalition – connecting the global to local and back again, linking community organisations, lawyers, and human rights defenders across all regions of the world to reform laws and prosecutorial practices.

HIV criminalisation remains stubbornly and worryingly widespread. More than 130 countries have used criminal law against people living with HIV accused of non-disclosure, potential or perceived HIV exposure or unintentional HIV transmission. Currently, 83 countries have HIV-specific criminal laws. Others use general criminal laws like “bodily harm”, “endangering health,” and even “attempted murder.”

These laws, and their application, are often based on outdated science and moral panic. They make people living with HIV to be singularly responsible for HIV prevention. They punish us for transmission risks that no longer exist in the era of treatment as prevention – and consider the harm of HIV to be so exceptional they have special laws, or prosecutions, that specifically target people diagnosed HIV-positive. No other communicable disease is treated so problematically in law.

But HIV criminalisation doesn’t exist in isolation. It is part of a broader ecosystem of criminalisation that targets the very communities most affected by HIV – sex workers, migrants, people who use drugs, and LGBTQ+ people. When these populations are criminalised, they are pushed underground, excluded from health services, and made more vulnerable to violence and exploitation.

HIV criminalisation also has a gendered impact. Women are often the first to be diagnosed, especially during pregnancy, and therefore the first to face prosecution. In some countries, pregnant women living with HIV have been charged with endangering their unborn child or accused of transmission through breastfeeding.

Gender-based violence, unequal access to legal representation, and social stigma amplify these injustices. At the same time, the criminalisation of sex work and gender nonconformity exposes women – particularly trans women – to harassment and violence from authorities.

And increasingly, advocacy organisations themselves are being restricted by laws that limit freedom of association, deny foreign funding, or create a chilling effect through so-called “anti-propaganda” or “foreign agent” measures. In more and more countries, simply speaking out against criminalisation is considered to be subversive.

And then there is the Global Gag Order, reinstated and expanded in early 2025 under the Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance policy. This policy prohibits non-U.S. NGOs receiving U.S. global health funds from providing, referring for, or even discussing abortion as a method of family planning – even when using their own, non-U.S. resources. It now applies to all U.S. global health assistance, including HIV funding.

For communities and organisations already constrained by criminal laws, the gag order adds another layer of silencing.
• It disrupts integrated HIV and reproductive-health services.
• It forces organisations to choose between funding and integrity.
• It weakens partnerships built over decades of global health cooperation.
• And it amplifies the chilling effect – discouraging advocacy, speech, and even data collection on reproductive rights.

Once again, women and girls bear the brunt. When abortion access is restricted, maternal deaths rise, and the same clinics providing HIV care lose their ability to deliver comprehensive, rights-based health services.

So when we talk about decriminalisation, we’re not just talking about repealing one set of laws. We’re talking about defending the space for civil society, for public health, and for human rights to function at all.

Despite these challenges, advocacy works. Here’s some examples – with a focus on HIV decriminalisation.
• In the US, in the past year alone, Maryland and North Dakota have repealed their HIV-specific criminal laws, while Tennessee removed mandatory sex offender registration for HIV-related convictions.
• In Mexico, again thanks to community leadership, five states have repealed vague “danger of contagion” laws used for HIV criminalisation, with more to come.
• In EECA, civil society in Ukraine is working right now with parliamentary champions to remove an HIV criminalisation law from its criminal code, despite being in the middle of a war.
• In Africa, sustained community advocacy led to the repeal of Zimbabwe’s HIV-specific criminal law and the prevention of a new HIV criminalisation law in Malawi.

But these victories didn’t happen overnight. They resulted from years of partnership between communities, legal and scientific experts, and funders willing to invest in advocacy infrastructure.

Community-led organisations are the foundation of all this progress. We are the early-warning systems when new laws are proposed, and we are the first responders when individuals face charges. We mobilise people living with HIV, key population and women’s networks, and human rights defenders to speak directly with policymakers, prosecutors, and the media.

Philanthropy has a crucial role here. Advocacy funding remains a small fraction of global HIV philanthropy, yet it has exponential impact. Advocacy capacity cannot be switched on only when a law or case hits the headlines. It requires continuity, institutional memory, and relationships built over time.

Funding advocacy protects every other investment in prevention, treatment, and care. Without enabling environments – without legal and policy reform – those investments cannot succeed.

Funders can make the difference by:
• Providing core, flexible, multi-year support that allows community-led groups to stay engaged between crises.
• Investing in coalitions and regional and global networks, like HIV JUSTICE WORLDWIDE, linking legal, scientific and human rights expertise with communities.
• Supporting data, storytelling, and knowledge translation – turning lived experience and evidence into policy change.
• Protecting civil-society space, especially where advocacy itself is criminalised or restricted.

To close, I want to leave one thought: HIV justice is prevention.

Every law that criminalises people living with HIV, every law that targets LGBTQ+ people, sex workers, people who use drugs, or migrants – and every funding policy that silences reproductive rights – makes the global epidemic harder to end.

Ending AIDS requires more than medicines. It requires dismantling the legal and policy barriers that drive people away from care and from each other.

Ending HIV criminalisation is achievable. We have the science, the evidence, and the community power to do it. What we don’t always have is flexible, sustained, core funding. Advocacy is not optional; it is infrastructure – the connective tissue that holds the HIV response together.

Philanthropy has both the freedom and the responsibility to keep that justice space open – ensuring that evidence, human rights, and community leadership remain at the heart of the global HIV response.

That is how we move from courtrooms to communities – and closer to ending AIDS as a public-health and human-rights crisis.

Humanising the Law: Reflections on Two Decades of Advocacy Against HIV Criminalisation

This week, the international peer-reviewed journal, AIDS Care, published online a research paper that examines how two decades of scientific progress, community advocacy, and storytelling have come together to influence laws, policies, and public understanding of HIV in the context of the criminal law. 

In Humanising the law: harnessing science and community voices to end HIV criminalisation, I trace nearly twenty years of work to challenge HIV criminalisation, drawing on my own involvement and on the collective efforts of so many others in the HIV justice movement. 

Some of the key points include:

  • Science as evidence for change. The consensus that people on effective treatment cannot transmit HIV, and the 2018 Expert Consensus Statement, have reshaped legal reasoning and prevented unjust prosecutions.

  • Stories bring the impact to life. The ordeals of people such as Ugandan nurse Rosemary Namubiru and the real Malawian woman at the centre of our short film, Mwayi’s Story, highlight the human cost of HIV criminalisation and the resilience of those most affected.

  • Legal reforms are possible. Since the HIV JUSTICE WORLDWIDE coalition was created in 2016, over a dozen countries and jurisdictions around the world have repealed or modernised their HIV criminalisation laws.

But I also make it clear that much remains to be done. HIV criminalisation continues to undermine public health and human rights, particularly in environments shaped by authoritarianism, disinformation, and broader crackdowns on sexuality, gender, migration, sex work, and drug use.

That is why I argue for a paradigm shift – a humanisation of the law that centres lived experiences, affirms dignity, and ensures legal systems reflect science and rights rather than fear and prejudice. Achieving this requires:

  • Ongoing investment in legal reform, advocacy, and community-led monitoring.

  • Stronger cross-movement solidarity with those facing overlapping forms of criminalisation.

  • Sustained funding to support the global HIV justice movement for the long term.

As I conclude in the article: ending HIV criminalisation is not only about changing laws, but also about changing cultures. It is about recognising that our lives, our rights, and our voices matter.

A limited number of free eprints of this article are available from this link.

Canada: Google refuses to suppress name-based search results in dismissed HIV criminalisation case

Google wants to keep HIV status of underage Canadian in search results

Canada’s data protection authority wants to enforce a version of the “right to be forgotten” that is reduced to a specific risk. Google is not playing along.

Google refuses to accept the Canadian version of the“right to be forgotten“, even though it is significantly reduced and better protected against abuse than the European version. Google’s refusal poses a problem for the monarchy’s weak data protection authority. The starting point of the dispute is media reports found via Google’s search engine about the arrest and prosecution of an HIV-positive, underage person, probably over a decade ago.

The person was once accused of not disclosing their HIV status prior to sexual contact. Canadian media reported on this, citing the person’s full name and sexual orientation. The data protection authority does not consider the reports to be a violation of the law.

However, the charges against the minor were quickly dropped because the results of the investigation showed that the person had never posed a risk to the health of others. Canada’s federal prosecutor generally does not prosecute cases where there was no realistic risk of infection. But if you enter the person’s name into Google’s search engine, you will still find the media reports about the arrest and charges for the alleged sexual offense at the top.

The consequences for the person are dire: physical attacks, difficulties finding work, social ostracism. She would like hyperlinks to outdated media reports to no longer appear in Google’s search results when her name is entered. When Google refused, the complainant turned to the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada in 2017.

Years of dispute over jurisdiction

The Office opened proceedings, but Google claimed that the authority was not allowed to investigate the search engine. It was used for journalistic purposes, for which the Canadian federal data protection law PEPIDA provides an exception. The authority went to court and won a declaration at both first (2021) and second instance (2023) that “every part” of the search engine is covered by the Canadian federal privacy law PEPIDA, especially as the search does not exclusively serve journalistic purposes.

Nevertheless, Google still refuses to suppress the hyperlinks to the media reports when a person’s name is entered. The authority is by no means demanding that the media reports be deleted from the index altogether. They may continue to be linked when other search terms are entered, but this should no longer happen when the name of the person concerned is entered. To this end, the data protection authority refers to a central rubber paragraph of the law (PEPIDA paragraph 5 section 3): “An organization may collect, use or disclose personal information only for purposes that a reasonable person would consider are appropriate in the circumstances.” (E.g.: Organizations may collect, use and disclose personal information only for purposes that a reasonable person would consider appropriate in the circumstances).

Personal protection vs public interest

Under certain limited conditions, it follows that search results may be unlawful: If the search results are likely to cause significant harm to an individual, and this outweighs the public interest in the search results when the individual’s name is entered.

In this particular case, this public interest, if any, was low because the person in question was not a person of public interest and the media reports revolved around highly sensitive information about private life, not public activities or working life. Furthermore, the charges were quickly suspended; according to current guidelines, they would hardly ever have been brought.

Although there is public discourse about criminal sanctions for undisclosed HIV status, the public can find the specific media reports via thematic search terms; the ability to find them via a person’s name does not contribute significantly to the discourse.

Most of the linked articles would report incompletely and misleadingly, as they do not mention the subsequent resting of the charges. They also fail to mention the federal and provincial guidelines for not pressing charges without risk of infection. Without this context, readers could gain a false impression, which could seriously harm the person named. In general, the articles were published many years ago, which also reduces the public interest in linking to them.

Infringement remains without consequences

By continuing to disseminate the links after entering the person’s name, Google permanently violated the cited legal provision. However, the Canadian Federal Data Protection Agency can neither impose fines nor impose conditions; it is limited to recommendations. Google does not want to implement these.

“Individuals have the right under Canadian privacy law to have information about themselves removed from online search results after entering their name in certain circumstances where there is a significant risk of harm that outweighs the public interest in that information being made available through such a search,” says Canada’s Privacy Commissioner Philippe Dufresne. His authority will “consider all available options to ensure Google’s compliance with the law.” What this will look like remains to be seen.

Comparison with Europe

The Canadian data protection authority’s access to a “right to be forgotten” has the advantage over the European model of less potential for abuse. Legal web content is not to be deleted from the search index as a matter of principle; rather, the focus is on protecting those affected. Anyone searching specifically for such content should not be able to easily find content that is dangerous for those affected, while other search terms will continue to lead to the target. The fact that a person’s name is also listed there has little effect on people who are largely unknown.

In the European model, the webpage as a whole is regularly filtered out of the search results, regardless of the search term. This leads to abuse if user comments are published on the same webpage. Anyone who doesn’t like a media report, for example, writes a “drunk” post underneath it. The poster is soon “embarrassed”, which is why he requests the search engines to suppress the webpage. The search engines have to obey. The operators of the affected website never find out about the delisting, which the European “affected party” has enforced without a court ruling.

Global study reveals 50 countries still enforce HIV-related travel restrictions

A new global study presented this week at the 13th IAS Conference on HIV Science in Kigali (IAS 2025) has revealed that 50 countries around the world continue to enforce HIV-related travel and residence restrictions, in clear violation of international human rights principles.

The data, shared by the HIV Justice Network through its new platform Positive Destinations, highlights the persistence of discriminatory laws and policies that prevent people living with HIV from freely travelling, working, studying, or settling in many parts of the world.

Despite progress – 83 countries now have no HIV-specific travel restrictions, and many others have adopted more inclusive approaches – 17 countries still impose severe measures such as outright entry bans, mandatory testing, and deportation. These include Bhutan, Brunei, Egypt, Iran, Kuwait, Malaysia, Russia, and the United Arab Emirates. Migrants and students are often disproportionately affected, with some unaware of the rules until after testing or disclosure, resulting in forced returns, loss of income, and separation from families.

Another 33 countries – including Australia, Canada, Kazakhstan, the Philippines, Saudi Arabia, and Singapore – have partial restrictions. These include requirements for HIV testing in visa applications, discretionary decisions based on perceived healthcare costs, and reduced access to essential services. Although these policies may appear neutral on the surface, they continue to disadvantage people living with HIV.

“These restrictions are rooted in outdated public health thinking and perpetuate stigma,” said Edwin J Bernard, HIV Justice Network’s Executive Director. “They obstruct access to healthcare, education, and family life, especially for migrants and refugees.”

   Click on the image to download the poster

In 2024, Positive Destinations documented several cases of deportation based solely on HIV status: Kuwait deported over 100 people, Russia’s Dagestan region deported nine, and Libya deported two. Such practices are increasingly being challenged by legal action. In Canada, for example, a court case led by the HIV Legal Network contests the “excessive demand” clause of immigration law, arguing it violates the country’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

However, policy reform has been uneven. Australia raised its health cost threshold for visa eligibility, slightly easing access to temporary stays, but permanent residency remains elusive for many people with HIV. A recent case saw an Italian teacher denied residency due solely to his HIV-positive status.

The study also underscores how HIV-related migration barriers often intersect with other forms of criminalisation and discrimination. In Uzbekistan and Russia, HIV criminalisation laws are paired with mandatory HIV testing for migrants. In the U.S., HIV-positive and LGBTQ+ asylum seekers continue to face mistreatment in detention centres. And in a tragic case in Turkey, a Syrian trans woman was reportedly deported after her HIV status was disclosed and later killed upon return.

The authors of the study call for urgent action: “Eliminating these harmful policies is essential to ending AIDS, achieving universal health coverage, and upholding the dignity and rights of people living with HIV everywhere,” said Bernard.

Positive Destinations, which hosts the updated Global Database on HIV-Specific Travel and Residence Restrictions, is available at www.positivedestinations.info

EP0623 Addressing HIV-related travel restrictions: Progress and challenges in eliminating discriminatory policies by Edwin J Bernard, Sylvie Beaumont, Elliot Hatt, and Sofía Várguez was presented at IAS2025 by Brent Allan at the 13th IAS Conference on HIV Science, Kigali, Rwanda.

New global data reveals rising HIV criminalisation amid stalling legal reforms

The HIV Justice Network published new data this week showing a troubling rise in the number of people criminalised for HIV non-disclosure, potential or perceived exposure, or unintentional transmission in 2024 and the first half of 2025. As legal reforms appear to be stalling, discriminatory prosecutions, harsh sentences, and misuse of outdated laws continue to impact people with HIV and the HIV response.

The figures, presented at the 13h IAS Conference on HIV Science (IAS 2025) in Kigali, Rwanda, are drawn from the Global HIV Criminalisation Database. The database documents criminal cases and legal developments involving HIV-specific or general criminal laws worldwide.

In 2024, at least 65 HIV criminalisation cases were reported across 22 countries – up from 57 in 2023 and 50 in 2022. Russia (25 cases) and the United States (11) led the global tally, followed by Uzbekistan, Spain, Argentina, Belarus, Senegal, and Singapore. For the first time, prosecutions were documented in Panama and Uruguay.

The upward trend continued into 2025, with 48 cases reported in just the first six months. Uzbekistan (28) and Russia (9) again accounted for the majority, alongside new cases in the U.S., Canada, and Argentina. However, the actual number of cases is likely much higher, particularly in Eastern Europe, Central Asia, and the United States, where civil society organisations report many cases go undocumented.

“These cases show that HIV criminalisation remains a global crisis,” said Edwin J. Bernard, Executive Director of the HIV Justice Network. “Far too often, people living with HIV are prosecuted not for causing harm, but simply for living with a health condition – often in ways that are unscientific, discriminatory, and deeply unjust.”

                 Download the poster by clicking on the image

The report highlights the intersection of HIV criminalisation with racism, homophobia, gender-based discrimination, and systemic inequality. In Senegal, for example, prosecutions have disproportionately targeted LGBTQ+ individuals. In the U.S., criminal laws continue to be weaponised against communities of colour, even in cases involving no risk of transmission – such as spitting, or sex with an undetectable viral load.

One of the most alarming cases occurred in South Africa, where a former soldier was sentenced to life plus ten years for rape and attempted murder after failing to disclose his HIV status to a consenting partner – despite no evidence of intent or actual transmission. Advocates warn that such cases equate HIV non-disclosure with sexual violence and undermine decades of public health and human rights gains.

Yet, amidst the setbacks, 2024/2025 also brought some signs of hope. Maryland and North Dakota fully repealed their HIV-specific laws, while Tennessee removed mandatory sex offender registration for HIV-related convictions. Mexico City and Colima repealed vague “danger of contagion” laws, and Ukraine’s parliament voted to remove HIV from its criminal code.

In Zimbabwe, community activism helped block a proposal to re-criminalise HIV transmission. However, a new law was introduced criminalising the deliberate transmission of STIs to children, including HIV – raising fears it could be used against mothers living with HIV, particularly in breastfeeding cases.

Despite these advances, HIV criminalisation remains widespread. A total of 83 countries still have HIV-specific laws, and 23 countries reported prosecutions in this period using either HIV-specific or general laws. The HIV Justice Network warns that without urgent action, the world is unlikely to meet UNAIDS’ target of reducing punitive laws to below 10% of countries by 2030.

“The path forward must be rooted in science, rights, and community leadership,” Bernard said. “We must end laws that punish people for their status, and instead build legal systems that support health, dignity, and justice.”

EPO622 Recent progress and setbacks in HIV criminalisation around the world by Edwin J Bernard, Sylvie Beaumont, and Elliot Hatt was presented at IAS 2025 by Paul Kidd at 13th IAS Conference on HIV Science in Kigali, Rwanda.

 

HIV Unwrapped: Justice in Every Stitch

At the intersection of science, art, and activism, HIV Unwrapped is a bold new exhibit reimagining the lab coat as a symbol of resistance, resilience, and representation.

HIV Unwrapped reveals not only the fabric of HIV science, but the human stories stitched within.

Among the collaborations launched today at the 13th IAS Conference on HIV Science in Kigali is a garment created by Kigali-based fashion design student, Dolice Niyomukiza, in partnership with HIV Justice Network’s Executive Director, Edwin Bernard.

Working remotely through online meetings and WhatsApp messages, Dolice and Edwin forged a creative partnership grounded in storytelling, symbolism, and shared commitment.

Dolice’s design, inspired by the ongoing fight for HIV justice, incorporates visual elements representing both the scales of justice and the weight of stigma. 

“My design was inspired by the idea that having HIV is not a crime,” Dolice explains. “My goal was to fight stigma and make people feel strong, loved, and safe.”

Her sketches evolved into a garment that embodies both struggle and strength – a powerful tribute to those unjustly criminalised because of their HIV status.

“Dolice listened deeply,” said Edwin. “She translated complex legal and social issues into fabric, texture and form. Her design doesn’t just speak – it demands to be heard.”

Dolice is one of 12 students from Rwanda Polytechnic – Kigali College (IPRC-Kigali) whose designs feature in the exhibition, alongside peers from London’s Central St Martins and Melbourne’s Royal Institute of Technology.

Together, their work weaves a global narrative of creativity and courage, shaped by cross-continental collaboration.

Today’s launch brought many of these young designers together to showcase their work and share their stories.

The event was hosted by Karl Schmid, HIV-positive broadcaster and host of +LIFE, with welcoming remarks from Beatriz Grinsztejn, President of the International AIDS Society.

Additional speakers included Alexis Apostolellis, CEO of ASHM; Dr. Alice Ikuzwe, Deputy Principal of Academics and Training at IPRC-Kigali; and Ophelia Haanyama, a woman living with HIV from Zambia who migrated to Sweden in 1991.

HJN’s Executive Director remarks to the
56th UNAIDS Board (PCB)

These remarks were made during the discussion of the proposed new Global AIDS Strategy (2026-31), the outline of which can be found here.

I’m the Executive Director of the HIV Justice Network, speaking on behalf of HIV JUSTICE WORLDWIDE, a coalition of community-led and community-based organisations working to end HIV criminalisation and related injustices.

Last June, I was a panellist during the Thematic Meeting on the Sustainability of HIV Response. You may recall that I highlighted that decriminalisation not only saves lives but it also saves money.

And so we welcome the direction of the new Global AIDS Strategy – especially Priority 2: People-focused – equity, dignity, and access, and Priority 3: Powered communities leading the HIV response, and the related results areas 6: End stigma and discrimination and uphold human rights and gender equality, and 8. Ensure community leadership.

But these priorities and results will remain aspirational unless they are backed by sustained, core funding for community-led networks.

Like UNAIDS itself, the HIV justice movement was born out of crisis, but it is sustained by hope. We know change is possible because we’ve seen it, even under the most difficult conditions. In fact, in just the past five years, 25 jurisdictions in 11 countries have repealed or revised their HIV criminalisation laws – motivated by everything from the futility of enforcement to the need to uphold privacy rights, recognise up-to-date science, and avoid harm to public health.

We have been making progress. But it is patently clear we cannot take any of that progress for granted. Communities, even if they and their organisations are criminalised, will continue to do much of the heavy lifting – reaching those who are excluded, challenging stigma and discrimination, and holding legal systems and governments accountable. That work takes time, trust, and skills – and it’s only possible when core funding is available to sustain expert teams and nurture leadership.

Global networks like ours are crucial in this ecosystem. With core, flexible funding – such as that provided by the Robert Carr Fund which has supported much of our work over the past decade – we support regional and national partners, strengthen the evidence base, build local advocacy capacity, and amplify community voices, including HIV criminalisation survivors. And we complement – not duplicate – Global Fund investments at the country level.

If we want a strategy that results in HIV justice, one that prioritises decriminalisation and is powered by communities, we must also continue to fund those communities that have brought us this far.

Mexico: HIV criminalisation in Tamaulipas fuels fear and discrimination

Activists in Tamaulipas denounce that criminalisation of HIV is an obstacle to health and human rights

Translated with Deepl. For original article in Spanish, please scroll down.

Cd. Victoria, Tamaulipas.- People living with HIV in the state of Tamaulipas face not only the challenge of their health condition, but also the threat of criminalisation. Furthermore, Article 203 of the state penal code allows anyone to report another person for ‘risk of contagion’, which generates fear, discrimination and hinders prevention and early detection efforts.
Celso Pérez Ruiz, president of the civil association ‘Tendremos Alas’ (We Will Have Wings), denounced that this legislation discourages citizens from getting tested for HIV, as the fear of being singled out and prosecuted outweighs the need to know their health status.
‘In Tamaulipas, people living with HIV continue to be criminalised, and the current policy of prevention and early detection cannot move forward precisely because there is a law that criminalises them; so who is going to want to get tested for HIV under the fear of being reported if they test positive?’
He recalled that despite the fact that the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation and the National Human Rights Commission have declared the law unconstitutional, the state has refused to repeal it.
In the last legislative session, Morena deputy Magaly de Andar presented an initiative to eliminate this article, but in her current term she has not followed up on it, leaving thousands of Tamaulipas residents in a situation of legal vulnerability.
This is not just a legal issue, it is a human rights issue. The criminalisation of HIV perpetuates stigma, alienates those living with HIV from health services and prevents them from exercising their right to a dignified life free from discrimination. It is time for Tamaulipas to move towards fairer and more humane legislation.
‘Article 203 of the Tamaulipas state criminal code criminalises people living with HIV, regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity. All Tamaulipas residents living with the virus are under the premise that they can be reported by anyone for the risk of contagion,’ said Celso Pérez Ruiz.

Cd. Victoria, Tamaulipas.- En el estado de Tamaulipas viven con VIH enfrentan no solo el desafío de su condición de salud, sino también la amenaza de criminalización; además, el artículo 203 del código penal estatal permite que cualquier persona denuncie a otra por «peligro de contagio», lo que genera miedo, discriminación y obstaculiza los esfuerzos de prevención y detección oportuna.
Celso Pérez Ruiz, presidente de la asociación civil “Tendremos Alas”, denunció que esta legislación disuade a los ciudadanos de hacerse pruebas de VIH, pues el temor a ser señalados y perseguidos legalmente pesa más que la necesidad de conocer su estado de salud.
“En Tamaulipas se sigue criminalizando a las personas que viven con VIH, y la actual política de prevención y detección oportuna no puede avanzar precisamente porque hay una ley que criminaliza; entonces qué persona va a querer hacerse una prueba de VIH bajo el temor de que sea boletinada en caso de dar positivo”.
Recordó que a pesar de que la Suprema Corte de Justicia de la Nación y la Comisión Nacional de los Derechos Humanos han declarado la norma como inconstitucional, el estado se ha resistido a derogarla.
En la pasada legislatura, la diputada de Morena Magaly de Andar presentó una iniciativa para eliminar este artículo, pero en su actual gestión no le ha dado seguimiento, dejando a miles de tamaulipecos en una situación de vulnerabilidad legal.
Este no es solo un tema legal, es una cuestión de derechos humanos. La criminalización del VIH perpetúa el estigma, aleja a quienes lo viven de los servicios de salud y les impide ejercer su derecho a una vida digna y libre de discriminación. Es hora de que Tamaulipas avance hacia una legislación más justa y humana.
“El artículo 203 del código penal del estado de Tamaulipas criminaliza a las personas que viven con VIH, más allá de su orientación sexual o de identidad de género. Todos los tamaulipecos que vivan con el virus están bajo la premisa de que pueden ser denunciados por peligro de contagio por cualquier persona”, refirió Celso Pérez Ruiz.

Humanising the Law: Harnessing Science and
Community Voices to End HIV Criminalisation

Speech delivered on the final morning plenary session of the 16th AIDSImpact Conference, Casablanca, 28th May 2025

Good morning.

I am deeply honoured to stand here with you today in Casablanca – a city whose name evokes stories of resistance and solidarity – to share our own story of resistance and solidarity: the global movement to end HIV criminalisation.

It’s especially meaningful to be back at AIDSImpact. Because, you see, this is where it all began for me. Eighteen years ago, in Marseille, I stood on a stage like this one, trembling slightly, as I spoke publicly for the very first time about HIV criminalisation.

I had no idea that moment would change the course of my life – or that it would help spark a movement that continues to grow today.

Later that same year, NAM – where I worked as an HIV treatment journalist – published my first book on the subject aimed at explaining HIV science and social science to the criminal legal system, and I started a blog – Criminal HIV Transmission – as a way of documenting the mounting number of unjust prosecutions and problematic new laws taking place across the world.

What started as a mostly solitary – and primarily UK-focused – effort quickly became a shared and surprisingly international one.

By AIDS 2008 in Mexico City, I began to understand that my blog was becoming a de facto global network, and many of the cases it documented were cited by South African Justice Edwin Cameron when, during his now-legendary plenary, he called for a global movement to end HIV criminalisation.

That same year UNAIDS and UNDP released guidance opposing overly broad criminal laws, and it was clear that something was shifting.

Two years later, at AIDS 2010 in Vienna we – that is NAM, GNP+, and the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network – convened the first-ever pre-conference on HIV criminalisation. It brought together scientists, advocates, lawyers, and most importantly, people living with HIV.  I had planned to start the HIV Justice Network then, but a consultancy job at UNAIDS, providing scientific and legal support for clear guidance to limit the overly broad use of the criminal law, kept me busy.

So it wasn’t until 2012, when we gathered in Oslo at a UNAIDS consultation on HIV and the criminal law, that the network finally came together. On the sidelines of the consultation, key representatives of civil society worked together to draft the Oslo Declaration on HIV Criminalisation – a ten-point call to action that was endorsed by more than 1700 individuals and organisations from 130 countries and, to my astonishment, also appeared as an appendix to the official UNAIDS guidance note that was published in 2013.

The Oslo Declaration became the founding document of the HIV Justice Network. From that point on, we were no longer reacting – we were organising.

By AIDS 2014 in Melbourne, with the support of several Australian and international HIV organisations, we held the Beyond Blame pre-conference, where our first major victory was announced: the repeal of the Australian state of Victoria’s HIV-specific criminal law. We knew then that change was possible.

In 2015, we joined forces with ARASA, the HIV Legal Network, GNP+, the Sero Project, and Positive Women’s Network–USA to form a powerful global consortium. With support from the Robert Carr Fund, we launched the HIV JUSTICE WORLDWIDE coalition in 2016, committing ourselves to collective action against the unjust criminalisation of people living with HIV.

Together, we developed a range of advocacy tools and resources, including the Expert Consensus Statement on the Science of HIV in the Context of Criminal Law, launched at AIDS 2018 in Amsterdam. The Consensus Statement translated complex science – about viral load, transmission routes, treatment effectiveness, and HIV forensics – into language that courts and lawmakers could understand.

Because the truth is: the law had not kept pace with science. Outdated laws continued to criminalise people living with HIV as though it were still the ‘90s. And behind each of these prosecutions was a human life: interrupted, humiliated, punished, often for simply living with a virus.

Today we know that people living with HIV on effective treatment cannot transmit the virus. U=U is not just a slogan – it’s a scientific fact.  And that message has been useful in limiting unjust prosecutions, primarily in the global North.

But HIV criminalisation is a global phenomenon, and we cannot rely on science alone as an argument against HIV criminalisation, especially in places where access to treatment or viral load testing is limited or is being taken away; nor in this brave new world of integration, where treatment or prevention is only likely to be accessed by people who are not marginalised, stigmatised, or otherwise criminalised.

That’s why our key messaging must always be that making people living with HIV solely responsible – and criminally liable – for HIV prevention is simply wrong: it’s ineffective, counterproductive, and unjust. That’s where storytelling comes in – to shine a spotlight on the human cost. So over the years we made documentaries focusing on the impact of HIV criminalisation on people.

Documentaries like More Harm Than Good – which brought to life all the social science studies that overwhelmingly found mandating disclosure, criminalising non-disclosure, and sending people to prison for potentially exposing or allegedly passing on HIV did the opposite of what lawmakers intended.

And Mwayi’s Story, about a woman in Malawi unjustly prosecuted for briefly comfort-nursing another woman’s baby and the subsequent empowered movement of women living with HIV in Malawi who spoke truth to power and persuaded their Parliament not to pass an HIV-specific criminalisation law.

We wanted to show that these laws and prosecutions do nothing to protect public health – in fact, they undermine in, and they destroy lives in the process. They increase stigma, turning vulnerable people away from prevention, treatment and care services.

And we have never stopped centring the voices of those most harmed.

People like Rosemary Namubiru, a kind, elderly nurse in Uganda, who dedicated her life to caring for others. She was falsely accused of exposing a child to HIV while administering an injection – a claim later shown to be scientifically impossible. Yet she was arrested live on TV, vilified in the press, and imprisoned. Rosemary was a survivor, but she never recovered from what was done to her. When she passed away in 2022, she left behind not only grief and anger, but also a legacy – a reminder of why we do this work. To honour her. To fight for the dignity and rights of people like her. And to ensure that no one else is ever treated the way she was.

And here in Morocco – where people living with HIV and key populations still face stigma, criminalisation, and exclusion – we must also honour the rich legacy of resistance, solidarity, and resilience that continues to inspire advocates demanding justice, dignity, and change.

Throughout this movement, it has always been communities who’ve led the way: survivors who dared to speak their truths; advocates who pushed for reform; scientists who stood up for evidence-based policy; and networks like ours, who bring it all together.

I never imagined, back in 2007, that this would become my life’s work. But here I am, 18 years later, standing before you with immense pride in what we’ve achieved – and profound concern for what we’re up against. Because the truth is: we are facing an existential moment.

Globally, we’ve witnessed the rise of authoritarianism and the anti-rights movement, which along with the funding crisis is leading to a rollback of hard-won human rights, and the erosion of multilateral cooperation.

Some governments are already doubling down on criminalisation – of people and of NGOs – using stigma and fear to justify their repression. And I worry that punitive approaches to HIV prevention will become the new normal, including policing of the bodies and lives of people living with HIV that was considered acceptable in the ‘90s.

And people living with HIV – especially those who are Black, Brown, gay or queer, trans, migrants, sex workers, people who use drugs – will be the first to be caught in the crosshairs.

The HIV justice movement was born out of crisis, but it is sustained by hope. We know change is possible – because we’ve seen it, even under the most difficult conditions. In fact, over the past five years 25 jurisdictions in 11 countries have repealed or revised their HIV criminalisation laws based on a range of reasons –  from futility to privacy rights, to recognising up-to-date science, to concerns over the financial, human or public health cost.

We have been making progress. But now we cannot take any of that progress for granted.

This movement belongs to all of us. And together, even with dwindling resources and some formidable enemies, I believe we can still create a world where justice is not just a concept, but a lived reality for every person living with HIV.

Thank you.