A criminal court in Kogon examined a case in a public hearing conducted via video conference involving a defendant charged with repeatedly exposing multiple individuals to the risk of HIV infection. The proceedings included testimony from the defendant, several victims, and the state prosecutor, as well as a review of extensive documentary and medical evidence, including epidemiological records, investigative reports, and statements collected during the pre-trial phase.
The court established that the defendant had been officially registered with an AIDS prevention and treatment centre since 2017 and had been repeatedly informed of her HIV-positive status, the modes of transmission, and her legal obligation to prevent endangering others. She had also been formally warned that failure to comply with these obligations could result in criminal liability under Article 113 of the Criminal Code, and had signed acknowledgements confirming her awareness of these duties.
Despite these warnings, the court found that she engaged in multiple sexual relationships over an extended period between 2024 and 2025 with several individuals in different locations in Kogon. These interactions included repeated sexual contact with at least three persons, during which she exposed them to the risk of HIV infection. The court noted that these acts were not isolated, but part of a repeated pattern of conduct despite her medical registration and prior awareness of the consequences.
During the trial, the defendant partially admitted to the allegations, confirming that she had been diagnosed with HIV and placed under regular medical supervision. She stated that she had been informed about transmission risks and legal responsibility by medical staff and acknowledged prior similar incidents for which she had already faced criminal consequences. She also described her interactions with the victims, indicating that relationships had developed socially before becoming intimate, and asserted that protective measures had been used in some instances and that certain individuals were aware of her condition. She further requested leniency, citing personal circumstances and the fact that the victims had no civil claims against her.
The victims provided varied testimony. One stated that he had been in an intimate relationship with the defendant and had been aware of her medical status, and later confirmed that he had tested negative and had no health complaints. Another victim described social and romantic interaction with the defendant, but could not clearly recall the sexual encounter due to intoxication; he subsequently underwent medical testing which also showed no infection. A third victim confirmed a sexual relationship and later stated that he had been informed of the defendant’s health condition and had ceased further contact after learning this, also reporting no medical issues. All victims indicated that they had no civil claims against the defendant.
The court assessed the defendant’s actions in light of criminal provisions concerning knowingly exposing others to the risk of HIV infection. It concluded that her conduct met the legal criteria for liability, based on her confirmed diagnosis, repeated official warnings, and continued engagement in unprotected or insufficiently protected sexual activity with multiple persons over time. The court also considered the documentary evidence, including medical records and investigative materials, as corroborating the pattern of conduct described in witness statements.
In sentencing, the court considered both mitigating and aggravating factors. While it found no formal aggravating circumstances, it noted several mitigating elements, including the defendant’s partial admission of guilt, the absence of civil claims from the victims, and various personal and social factors such as her health condition and family circumstances. However, the court also emphasised the repeated nature of the offences and the fact that prior convictions and warnings had not deterred further similar conduct.
The court determined that a custodial sentence was appropriate but applied provisions allowing for a reduced penalty below the statutory minimum. It imposed a three-year term of imprisonment and, in combination with an earlier unserved sentence from a prior judgment, ordered partial aggregation of penalties, resulting in a final sentence of three years and three months’ imprisonment. The sentence is to be served in a general-regime correctional facility, with the term calculated from the date of pre-trial detention.
The court ordered that the pre-trial detention measure remain in force until the judgment becomes legally binding. It also confirmed that the victims’ lack of civil claims would be taken into account and informed the parties of their right to appeal within the statutory time limits.
