The case concerns a young woman convicted under Uzbekistan’s HIV criminalisation provisions for allegedly exposing her partner to the risk of infection, despite his knowledge of her status and continued consent to the relationship.
In February 2026, a city criminal court sentenced the defendant to five years and one month of imprisonment in a general-regime colony. The conviction was based on provisions of the Criminal Code penalising the knowing exposure of another person to HIV. The court found that she had been registered with a regional AIDS centre since 2017, had received formal warnings about transmission risks, and nevertheless engaged in sexual relations in August 2025 with her partner, thereby placing him at risk of infection.
Both the defendant and the alleged victim appealed the judgment. The defendant argued that the relationship had been consensual and informed. According to her testimony, the couple had visited a regional AIDS centre together, consulted a doctor, and agreed to pursue a relationship despite the risk. She stated that her partner had provided written acknowledgement that he had no claims against her in the event of transmission. She further explained that they had been living together in a relationship akin to marriage and asked the court for leniency, also noting that she was six weeks pregnant at the time of the appeal.
The complainant supported this account. He confirmed that he had been aware of her HIV status, had willingly continued the relationship, and had no complaint against her. He also requested that the court show leniency.
The appellate court reviewed the case, including witness testimony from a medical professional who confirmed that the couple had jointly sought counselling. However, the court upheld the original conviction and sentence. It concluded that the defendant’s guilt had been properly established and that the lower court had correctly assessed the evidence. The appellate judges emphasised that criminal liability did not depend on the victim’s complaint or consent, but on the act of knowingly placing another person at risk.
In affirming the sentence, the court referred to general principles of criminal law, including the need for punishment to reflect the seriousness and social danger of the offence, as well as its role in deterrence and rehabilitation. While it acknowledged mitigating factors such as the defendant’s young age, her remorse, and her personal circumstances, it found that these had already been duly considered by the trial court and did not justify a reduction or substitution of the custodial sentence.
The appeals were therefore dismissed, and the original sentence was left unchanged.
