The Ohangaron City Criminal Court in Uzbekistan considered a case against a woman charged under Article 113(4) of the Criminal Code, in its former wording, for knowingly exposing another person to the risk of HIV transmission.
According to the judgment, the defendant was diagnosed with HIV in April 2025 and registered with the national AIDS service. She was informed about the ways HIV could be transmitted, the importance of using separate personal hygiene items and equipment, and her legal obligation to inform sexual partners of her HIV status. She was also warned that failing to meet this obligation and exposing another person to the risk of infection could lead to criminal liability.
The court found that, despite knowing her HIV status, the defendant did not disclose it to a male partner with whom she had consensual sexual relations on two occasions: once in autumn 2025 and again in May 2026. The judgment states that the encounters took place without consistent condom use. In her testimony, the defendant admitted the charge and explained that she had been ashamed to disclose her status. She said she did not know when or from whom she had acquired HIV and asked the court to take her circumstances into account when determining the sentence.
The partner told the court that he had not known about the defendant’s HIV status and would not have agreed to sexual relations had he been informed. After learning of her status, he sought legal action. He subsequently underwent HIV testing, and the judgment records that he had not acquired HIV. He told the court that he had forgiven the defendant and asked for leniency, noting her family circumstances.
The court also considered testimony from a hotel employee, who confirmed that the two individuals had visited the establishment in November 2025 and May 2026. The court found the defendant’s admission to be supported by witness testimony and other investigative records, including statements and inspection and confrontation reports. It concluded that her conduct was correctly classified under Article 113(4) of the Criminal Code, in its former wording.
In determining the sentence, the court considered the defendant’s full admission of guilt and remorse, her family circumstances and responsibility for children, her pregnancy, her lack of previous convictions, and her conduct after the offence. It also took into account the circumstances that had led to the offence and the victim’s request for leniency. Applying Article 57 of the Criminal Code, which allows a court to impose a more lenient sentence than the statutory provision would ordinarily provide, the court imposed four years of restriction of liberty.
The court credited 47 days spent under house arrest against the sentence, leaving three years, ten months and thirteen daysto be served. During this period, the defendant was restricted to her home except for the time required to travel to and from work or study. She was also prohibited from changing her residence or leaving the Tashkent Region without the supervising authority’s permission. The probation service in the district where she lived was tasked with enforcing the sentence. The house-arrest measure was to be lifted once the judgment entered into legal force.
The judgment stated that an appeal could be lodged within ten days, subject to the procedural rules specified by the court.
