A criminal court in Samarkand considered a case involving a defendant previously known to the justice system, who had earlier been convicted of HIV-related offences and had served various non-custodial and custodial restrictions before being conditionally released. The present proceedings were held in a closed court session with participation of the prosecution, defence counsel, the defendant, and the victim, and the court examined witness testimony, investigative materials, medical documentation from an HIV prevention centre, and other case records.
The court established that the defendant had been formally registered as HIV-positive in 2020 after undergoing medical testing and had been officially informed by healthcare authorities of his diagnosis, transmission risks, and legal obligations to avoid endangering others. He had also signed acknowledgements confirming that he understood these obligations and had been repeatedly warned that failure to comply could result in criminal liability. Despite this, the court found that in September 2025 he engaged in sexual activity with a woman without using protective measures, thereby exposing her to the risk of HIV transmission.
The investigation showed that the sexual encounter occurred after the defendant arranged contact through an acquaintance and met the victim under the pretext of casual employment. The court determined that during the interaction, the defendant failed to disclose his medical condition and did not use any form of protection, despite being fully aware of the risks associated with his HIV status. It was further established that the victim had requested protective measures, which were not used, and that the encounter proceeded nonetheless. Following the incident, the victim later became aware of the defendant’s medical status and filed a complaint with law enforcement authorities, prompting an investigation.
During the trial, the defendant fully admitted his guilt and confirmed the circumstances described in the indictment. He acknowledged that he had been diagnosed with HIV several years earlier, had been under medical supervision, and had been repeatedly advised to avoid unprotected sexual contact. He also admitted prior similar conduct, including transmission to a former spouse, and stated that on the day of the incident he had been under the influence of alcohol and acted without regard to the consequences. He expressed remorse for his actions and requested leniency, citing his family situation and willingness to undergo treatment.
The victim testified that she had met the defendant under the assumption of performing cleaning work and had later been invited into a private residence, where the sexual encounter took place. She stated that she had explicitly requested the use of protective measures and had been reassured that no health risks existed. She later learned of the defendant’s HIV status and reported the matter to authorities. Medical examinations conducted after the incident did not confirm infection, but the court noted that the conduct nonetheless constituted exposure to a significant risk of transmission.
The court relied on a combination of testimonial evidence, medical records, official registration documents from the AIDS prevention centre, and recorded statements to conclude that the defendant’s actions met the legal elements of knowingly exposing another person to HIV infection under the relevant provisions of the Criminal Code. It further held that his conduct was intentional in the sense that he acted with full awareness of his condition and the associated risks, yet proceeded with unprotected sexual contact.
In sentencing, the court considered both mitigating and aggravating circumstances. It recognised the defendant’s full admission of guilt, remorse, and family responsibilities as mitigating factors, while also noting his prior convictions for similar offences and the repeated nature of his conduct as aggravating elements. The court concluded that earlier non-custodial measures and conditional release had not achieved corrective aims, and that a custodial sentence was necessary to ensure both punishment and prevention of further offences.
Applying the principle of proportionality and sentencing guidelines, the court imposed a three-year term of imprisonment under Article 113(4) of the Criminal Code. In addition, it partially aggregated the sentence with an unserved portion of a previous restriction of liberty, resulting in an overall term of three years and six months’ imprisonment 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 unchanged and confirmed that evidentiary materials, including documentary records and digital evidence, would be retained in the case file. It also informed the victim of her right to seek compensation for material and moral damages through civil proceedings and set out the procedures for appeal within the statutory time limits.
