In April 2026, the Termez District Criminal Court delivered its judgment in a case concerning the transmission of HIV within an intimate relationship.
The defendant, a woman with no prior criminal record, was living with a disability and raising two minor children. She had been diagnosed with HIV in 2017 and was registered under medical supervision. At that time, she had been formally informed of the nature of the infection, the means of transmission, and her legal obligation to prevent exposing others, including the requirement to use protection and to inform sexual partners of her status.
The case centered on her relationship with a man with whom she became involved in 2021. Their relationship developed into a form of religious marriage, and they lived together as a family along with her children. Over a prolonged period, they engaged in regular unprotected sexual relations. In 2025, the man was diagnosed with HIV. Medical inquiries and his own statements indicated that he had no other sexual partners during the relevant period, and the infection was attributed to the relationship with the defendant.
At trial, the defendant admitted her guilt. She acknowledged that she had been aware of her HIV-positive status but had failed to take adequate precautions. At the same time, she stated that she had informed her partner of her condition before their relationship became intimate, and that he had continued the relationship voluntarily. She expressed remorse, asked for forgiveness, and emphasized her personal circumstances, including her health condition, her dependent children, and her difficult social situation.
The victim confirmed much of this account. He testified that he had been aware of her HIV status from the outset and had nonetheless chosen to maintain the relationship. He stated that he had no complaint against her and did not seek punishment.
The court, however, found that the elements of the offence were fully established. It held that the defendant had knowingly exposed and ultimately transmitted HIV to another person, in violation of her legal obligations. The court emphasized that her admission of guilt was corroborated by the victim’s testimony and other evidence.
In determining the sentence, the court undertook a detailed assessment of both the seriousness of the offence and the defendant’s personal circumstances. It identified numerous mitigating factors: her confession and remorse, her disability, her responsibility for two minor children, the absence of prior convictions, the victim’s lack of complaint, and the fact that the relationship had been consensual and ongoing. The court also noted positive character references from the local community and the absence of any prior complaints about the family.
Taking these factors into account, the court departed from the standard custodial penalty by law and imposed a non-custodial sentence. The defendant was sentenced to four years of restriction of liberty. This measure required her to remain at her residence, with limited exceptions for essential needs such as obtaining food or medical care, and prohibited her from changing her place of residence or leaving the region without authorization. Supervision of the sentence was assigned to the probation authorities.
The court formally recorded that the victim had no claims against the defendant and informed the parties of their right to pursue any civil claims separately.
The judgment thus reflects a balancing approach: while affirming criminal liability for the transmission of HIV, the court tailored the punishment to the defendant’s personal and social circumstances, opting for a restrictive but non-custodial sanction rather than imprisonment.
