The Andijan Regional Court upheld the conviction and prison sentence of a young woman found guilty of repeatedly exposing several men to HIV despite knowing her HIV-positive status.
On 15 April 2026, the cassation panel of the Andijan Regional Court reviewed a complaint filed by the defendant against a June 2025 judgment of the Zhalakuduk District Criminal Court. The defendant, born in 2005, had been convicted under Article 113, Part 4 of the Criminal Code of Uzbekistan and sentenced to three years’ imprisonment in a general-regime colony, with the sentence reduced below the statutory minimum through application of Article 57.
According to the case materials, the defendant had been registered as living with HIV since September 2013 and had received formal warnings from the Andijan Regional AIDS Center about criminal liability for exposing others to infection. The court found that in August and October 2024 she met several men in Khanabad city and had sexual intercourse with them while concealing her HIV status. The encounters reportedly took place in a field yard in the Istiklol neighbourhood.
The judgment stated that the defendant had sexual relations with five men in total, including three men in August 2024 and two additional men in October 2024. The court found that, although condoms had reportedly been used, the men were nevertheless placed at risk of HIV infection because they had not been informed of her status.
During the proceedings, the defendant fully admitted her guilt but requested a non-custodial sentence in light of her personal and family circumstances. Her lawyer argued for leniency before the cassation court.
The appellate judges reviewed the evidence relied upon by the lower court, including the defendant’s confession, testimony from the complainants and witnesses, medical records from the AIDS Center, and forensic medical conclusions. The court concluded that the first-instance judgment had correctly established the facts and properly qualified the offence under Article 113, Part 4.
In considering sentencing, the court noted several mitigating factors, including the defendant’s remorse, confession, lack of previous convictions, and young age. However, it also treated the repeated nature of the conduct and the motives behind the offences as aggravating circumstances. Although the original trial court had already imposed a sentence below the statutory minimum under Article 57 of the Criminal Code, the cassation judges concluded that there were no grounds for further reduction.
The Andijan Regional Court therefore rejected the cassation appeal and left the original conviction and three-year prison sentence unchanged.
