US: Republican Senator highlights Florida’s “archaic” HIV-specific criminal law, advocates for law reform in 2017

Last Thursday, March 10th Senator Rene Garcia introduced an amendment in the Florida Senate to an amendment of a bill he was co-sponsoring (SB 314) to highlight the damage done to the HIV response by the state’s overly broad HIV criminalisation law.

Senator Garcia, a Republican, withdrew the amendment following his three minute intervention, but noted that he intends to work with the Senate in the next legislative session, 2017, in order to reform Florida’s overly broad HIV non-disclosure law.

In order words, the amendment was presented strategically in order to give the issue of HIV criminalisation some exposure to his colleagues.

Tami Haught of the Sero Project, who is working closely with colleagues in Florida to modernise the law, noted:

“We are delighted that Senator Garcia is taking leadership on this issue and look forward to an ongoing dialogue. Sero and our Florida partners will be soliciting comments and a legal review of what Senator Garcia has proposed as well as continuing to organize statewide to build support for change. We have a lot of work to do between now and next year’s legislative session.”

Watch Senator Garcia speak about why it is crucial to reform Florida’s HIV criminalisation law below.

Australia: New campaign launched by state PLHIV organisation to amend HIV disclosure requirement in New South Wales’ Public Health Act

Positive Life’s Communications and Policy Officer, Scott Harlum (pictured), explains why the organisation will advocate for changes to HIV disclosure requirements in the Public Health Act as part of the review.

The Public Health Act is a key piece of NSW legislation which impacts the lived experience of people living with HIV. For many years, Positive Life has advocated for a number of key changes to the Act to reflect the current reality of HIV as a chronic manageable health condition, to better support efforts to end HIV transmission and to acknowledge prevention of HIV transmission is a shared responsibility regardless of sero-status. With charges under the Crimes Act laid against a man relating to the alleged infection of another man in January, now unrelated accusations against a sex worker extradited to Western Australia, Positive Life will again advocate for change to the Public Health Act as part of a required review of the legislation.

Despite an update in 2010, Positive Life argues some sections of the Public Health Act need change, and even removal from the Act to protect the interests of people living with HIV, reduce stigma and discrimination and enhance HIV prevention and testing in the broader community. A key example is the removal of Section 79, known as the ‘disclosure provision’.

Section 79 requires anyone who knows they have a sexually transmissible infection (STI) including HIV to inform a person before they have sex, and for that person to voluntarily accept the risk of acquiring that infection. In NSW, if you are HIV-positive and don’t disclose your status before sex you are guilty of an offence under the Act. The requirement to disclose your HIV status before sex hasn’t changed from the 1991 version of the Act, except for the inclusion of a ‘reasonable precautions’ provision.

This provision provides a defence to prosecution if ‘reasonable precautions’ have been taken during sex to prevent transmission. However, the definition of ‘reasonable precautions’ remains unclear and this amendment falls short of the current reality of HIV. Removing Section 79 will provide a more comprehensive approach to the rights and responsibilities of the community regardless of sero-status.

With today’s HIV treatments, if a HIV-positive person is on treatments and has an ‘undetectable viral load’, the chances of condomless sex resulting in HIV infection are extremely low. However under the current Section 79, without change to the law or a court deciding that an undetectable viral load is a ‘reasonable precaution’, a person with HIV could still be committing an offence under the Act for not disclosing their status before sex.

Under Section 79, criminalising HIV discourages testing and encourages anonymous sex. Put simply, if you don’t know you have HIV you cannot be found guilty of an offence under the Act for not disclosing your status. Equally, anonymous sex reduces your chances of being identified for prosecution. In an era where more than 90% of people with HIV are on treatment and have an undetectable viral load, people who are infected with HIV but unaware of their status are more of a risk for transmission than people on treatment with a suppressed viral load.

Fear of prosecution inhibits honesty with sexual partners and medical providers, so Section 79 may actually increase the transmission of HIV and other STIs, rather than decrease it. An honest and open relationship with our doctor is crucial to maintain good health regardless of our sero-status. For example, contracting an STI such as gonorrhoea is a risk for anyone who is sexually active, and if the symptoms are hidden, we don’t know we’ve picked up an STI. If we can’t speak openly about the sex we have, it’s likely we won’t be tested for STIs and instead transmit any unknown infection to others.

Under Section 79, forced disclosure of our status as a person with HIV can encourage HIV-related stigma and discrimination, both real and perceived. Disclosure of our status as a person with HIV can, in rare circumstances, lead to violence. More often forced disclosure leads to rejection, loss of control over who knows of our status, discrimination on the basis of our status, or the premature ending of relationships.

Section 79 as it stands does not account for PrEP. Today, many HIV-negative people are already importing pre-exposure prophylaxis or ‘PrEP’, and following the announcement on World AIDS Day last year of an expanded trial of the HIV-prevention medication, many more will be taking PrEP as the trial is rolled out in coming months. A benefit of PrEP is it encourages HIV-negative people to take control of their own health and reduce their own risk of acquiring HIV. Reducing HIV transmission is a shared responsibility and Positive Life believes this principle should be reflected in the Public Health Act.

With the coming review of the Public Health Act, Positive Life will share more about other changes we believe should be made to the Act to reflect the modern reality of HIV as an ongoing manageable health condition. In the meantime, if you have questions or comments about our proposed changes to HIV disclosure requirements in the Act, please make contact on 1800 245 677 (freecall) or by email.

Originally published on Gay News Network

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

REPEAL HIV Discrimination Act

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

The full text of the bill can be found here.

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

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

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

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

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

Alabama

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Missouri

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

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

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

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

Rhode Island

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

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

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

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

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

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

Texas

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

 

 

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

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

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

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

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

Germany: Aachen Court re-evaluates key ‘mens rea’ requirement in German law, rules HIV transmission without disclosure is negligent injury, not intentional harm

Last week, for the first time a German court ruled that HIV transmission without prior disclosure was negligent injury, rather than intentional harm.

The District Court of Aachen sentenced a 43 year-old man to one year and nine months on probation for having condomless sex with his former female partner without disclosing his HIV-positive status. The woman is now also HIV-positive. The maximum sentence for negligent bodily injury is three years in prison and a fine.

With this judgment the Court has created legal history – the first ruling since 1988 to change the way HIV non-disclosure cases are considered by German courts. Until now, the Federal Court, as well as lower courts, had always considered that HIV non-disclosure prior to sex without a condom meant that the defendant “considered acceptable” that their partner would acquire HIV.  This concept, of dolus eventualis, is much closer to the common law definition of ‘recklessness’ than to malicious intent.

Leading HIV and human rights lawyer Jacob Hösl, who attended the hearing in an advisory capacity, told Deutsche AIDS-Hilfe: “The Federal Court has always said that the examination of pre-meditation requires a case-specific overall examination, which can vary greatly depending on the individual circumstances. The lower courts, however, have always assumed intent by default. For the first time this court sees it differently. ”

Hösl praised the fact that the court studied intensively the medical facts and personal circumstances of the accused. “The man did not want his partner infected – for him she was the love of his life,” he noted.

The presiding judge, Hans-Günter Goergen, began his oral verdict, stating: “We have learned a lot about HIV in this trial.” According to press reports, he noted that the defendant had concealed his HIV-positive status because he was afraid his partner would leave him, but that he had no desire for her to become HIV-positive.

The judge also accepted that the defendant had tried to protect his partner (by using condoms most of the time, and withdrawing before ejaculating), but failed due to the circumstances (she started taking contraceptive pills and desired condomless sex) and because of his fear of losing his partner. He noted that the defendant’s former wife had divorced him in 2007 after he had tested HIV-positive. Accordingly, the judge saw no evidence that the defendant acted with intent.

The Court also found the defendant not guilty with respect to three other charges relating to HIV non-disclosure and potential HIV exposure involving two women when the defendant’s viral load was undetectable.

A medical expert told the Court that during the relationship with the complainant that is now HIV-positive, the risk of transmission was low, as he had a low (but not undetectable) viral load. Dr. Heribert Knechten, a witness for the defence, who was also the defendant’s doctor, noted that in 2014, before commencing treatment, his patient’s viral load was stable at 85,000 copies per milliliter, which translated into the risk of HIV transmission during vaginal intercourse to be between 0.05 to 0.15 percent. He also testified that after the defendant’s viral load reached undetectable at the end of 2014 that he was very unlikely to be infectious.

Manuel Izdebski, Deutsche AIDS-Hilfe board member said in a press release:

“This verdict is a step of great value: the first time that a court recognizes that you cannot automatically assume intent in HIV transmission cases; it is almost always due to fear – as it was in this case – that people do not disclose. Accordingly, this must be taken into account. Criminal law is not an appropriate way to measure this. The decision of the District Court in Aachen is a pioneering step towards a legal system that no longer penalises HIV transmission as a criminal offence.”

The written judgement is expected soon. However, today, the prosecution has appealed the ruling, so this judgement may not be final.