A court in Uzbekistan convicted a man living with HIV after finding that he had knowingly exposed his wife and child to HIV without disclosing his status. According to the judgment, the man had been registered with the regional AIDS centre and formally warned about criminal liability for exposing others to HIV. Nevertheless, he entered into a religious marriage with the complainant and engaged in unprotected sexual relations over several years. The court heard that both the woman and one of their children were later diagnosed with HIV after medical testing during a hospital stay.
During the trial, the complainant stated that she had not been informed of her husband’s HIV status before or during their relationship. She explained that she only learned of his diagnosis after doctors informed the family that he carried HIV and recommended that she and the children also be tested. She testified that the family had continued living together after the diagnosis, that the couple had not used protection during sexual intercourse, and that the AIDS centre later provided medication and preventive supplies to the family. Although she initially filed a complaint after experiencing financial difficulties and feeling abandoned by her husband, she told the court that she no longer sought punishment and requested leniency because he was the family’s sole breadwinner.
The defendant admitted guilt and expressed remorse. He acknowledged that doctors had warned him HIV could be transmitted sexually, but claimed that he had not fully understood the seriousness of the infection at the time. He asked the court to take into account that he had no previous convictions and had dependent children.
The court found the man guilty under Article 113 of Uzbekistan’s Criminal Code for knowingly placing another person at risk of HIV infection. In determining the sentence, the court referred to Supreme Court guidance encouraging non-custodial penalties for less serious offences where rehabilitation without imprisonment is possible. It considered the defendant’s confession, remorse, lack of prior convictions, the complainant’s request for leniency, and the fact that the parties remained a family. At the same time, the court treated the deliberate nature of the conduct as an aggravating factor.
Concluding that the defendant could be rehabilitated without imprisonment, the court imposed a three-year restriction of liberty sentence rather than incarceration. The sentence required him to remain at home outside working or study hours and prohibited him from changing residence or leaving the region without permission from probation authorities. The court also warned that failure to comply with the restrictions could result in the sentence being replaced with a harsher punishment.
