As Arkansas tops another terrible list, this time as the state with the highest rate of HIV transmission, advocates are calling on Arkansas lawmakers to decriminalize the sexually transmitted disease and commit funding for prevention, treatment and education.
A coalition of people from community organizations including Central Arkansas Pride, Arkansas Rapps, Intransitive, Arkansas Black Gay Men’s Forum and Arkansas Queer Men United, along with several people living with undetectable HIV, gathered in the Old Supreme Court Room in the State Capitol before several Democratic state representatives on Monday.
Advocates argued that Arkansas’s HIV laws, which haven’t been updated since the 1980s, are outdated and create a culture of fear that prevents people from getting tested and treated for HIV. They asked lawmakers to commit $1.5 million from the state’s surplus of more than $367 million to HIV prevention, treatment and education.
Under Arkansas law, knowingly exposing another person to HIV is a Class A felony, punishable by up to 30 years in prison and a fine of up to $15,000. But critics like the Center for HIV Law and Policy say these woefully outdated laws are out of step with modern science, rooted in stigma and punish behavior that carries no or negligible risk of actually transmitting the disease.
With proper treatment, HIV can become undetectable in a person, meaning it can’t be transmitted to another person through sex, but Arkansas law doesn’t account for this.
“HIV criminalization laws like ours here in Arkansas are opposed by public health and national justice experts such as the National Alliance of State and Territorial AIDS Directors and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers,” said Tian Estell, policy director of Intransitive. “We need to modernize and stop punishing people for having a virus.”
Tian added that “Black, transgender and non-binary individuals in the South are disproportionately impacted by HIV” due to other contributing factors like lack of housing, transportation and employment and limited or no access to healthcare.
“Discriminatory policies also generate and enhance stigma and fear, creating barriers to prevention and care,” Tian said. “Intransitive serves transgender people and migrants, and we’ve seen a rise in fear associated with HIV testing and disclosure of positive status”
HIV is a larger problem in Arkansas than in most states, and advocates argue our laws are only making it worse.
In 2019, the federal Health and Human Services Department started an initiative to end the HIV epidemic by 2030, identifying Arkansas as one of seven priority states where the burden of HIV is the highest.
“Arkansas continues to see new HIV diagnoses each year. In fact, Arkansas ranked number one in the highest increase of new HIV cases, seeing a roughly 67% spike since 2018,” said Raheem White, program director for Arkansas Rapps. “The burden does not fall equally. Black communities tend to carry a higher share of these diagnoses. Central Arkansas and parts of Northwest Arkansas show higher impact, while rural areas face a different challenge with fewer services and longer distances to care.”
Tommy Sproles, a community outreach organizer for Arkansas Rapps, said those numbers may not be representative of the full scope of cases in Arkansas, especially in rural areas.
“It’s a concern of ours that the numbers do not accurately reflect the real life experiences within those other parts of the state, such as the rural areas where we think that the numbers would be higher, but they’re going under-reported because of the lack of testing in those areas,” Sproles said. “As we’re talking about the data that we receive, what we’re basing our stuff on is the data that the Arkansas Department of Health actually receives, but that doesn’t even cover the full scope of everyone who is testing, if you’re not a clinic or a subcontractor for the Arkansas Department of Health, that data is not even being accumulated.”
Arkansas Rapps, for example, uses telehealth to connect people in Arkansas with testing, medication and preventative medicine like PrEP, which is up to 99% effective at preventing the transmission of HIV.
Advocates said criminalizing HIV and not funding its prevention costs Arkansas millions of dollars in both healthcare and incarceration.
“Pulaski County has the highest rate of HIV-criminalization arrests, with most other counties having only one or no arrests. This not only speaks to a disproportionate application of the law, but a significant waste of resources,” said Amber Kincade, a comprehensive prevention specialist with Engaging Arkansas Communities.
“According to data from the Arkansas Department of Corrections, from 2007 to 2023 the average sentence per count for the HIV-related convictions was 24 years. According to the fiscal year 25 Inmate Cost Report, the cost per incarcerated person a day was $74.46, which was a $4.03 increase from 2024. This means that a sentence of 24 years would cost the state roughly $652,272,” Kincade said. “The lifetime cost of treating HIV is estimated to be over $500,000. Therefore, for one case of a person living with HIV receiving such a sentencing, the cost will be over $1 million.”
Kincade added that Texas decriminalized HIV in 1994 and increased public health funding for prevention and testing.
“Texas has saved an estimated $500,000 in lifetime cost per case in HIV treatment,” Kincade said.
Sanjay Johnson, a man living with undetectable HIV, told lawmakers he was prosecuted in Pulaski County for knowingly transmitting HIV, despite the virus being undetectable in his system, in 2017.
“The language itself is damaging, because with that, people think that transmission actually occurred, which in my case was not the case. It never occurred at all,” Johnson said.
Johnson’s case lasted two years, and his lawyer got the charge reduced from a felony to aggravated assault with five years of probation. That’s despite Johnson’s medical records, which said he was undetectable, being shown in court, he said.
“You wonder why HIV is the only STD that someone can be charged for. Not gonorrhea, chlamydia, herpes, etc, etc. HIV is the only sexually transmitted disease that can be criminalized here,” Johnson said.
New Zealand: New research reveals how HIV criminalisation is experienced in Aotearoa
HIV decriminalisation in Aotearoa: Survey findings
For the first time in Aotearoa New Zealand, we have national evidence on how HIV criminalisation is experienced by people living with HIV.
This research captures the voices of 247 people from diverse communities across the country. It documents how criminal law, public health processes, stigma, and modern HIV science intersect in real life. The project was undertaken collaboratively by Positive Women Inc, Burnett Foundation Aotearoa, Body Positive, and Toitū te Ao, reflecting the shared commitment of all four organisations to amplifying community experiences and informing meaningful change.
The findings highlight the need for greater clarity, alignment with contemporary science, and thoughtful public conversation.
About the research
This study explores:
Awareness and understanding of criminal and public health law
Attitudes toward HIV criminalisation
The lived impact of legal uncertainty
The role of stigma in shaping legal and social outcomes
Recommendations informed by participant experience
Participants represented a wide range of ages, genders, sexualities, ethnicities, migration histories, and lengths of time living with HIV.
This research centers lived experience while grounding analysis in contemporary HIV science, including the evidence behind U=U (Undetectable = Untransmittable).
Key findings
1. Preference for public health management
Most participants would prefer public health manage their HIV transmission rather than the police – because HIV is a health issue, not a crime.
2. Attitudes are nuanced
Participants held diverse and layered views about criminalisation. Support was often linked to cases of intentional harm, while broader criminalisation raised concerns about fairness, stigma, and unintended consequences.
3. Impact extends beyond prosecutions
Even where prosecutions are rare, the possibility of criminalisation shapes behaviour, disclosure practices, relationships, and wellbeing.
4. Stigma remains central
Legal frameworks do not exist in isolation. Participants described how stigma around HIV influences both public perception and perceived legal risk.
Why this matters
Effective HIV responses must reflect:
Modern treatment science
Public health best practice
Human rights principles
The lived experience of people living with HIV
Clear, evidence-informed discussion is essential to ensuring legal and policy settings support – rather than undermine – public health outcomes.
Recommendations
The report identifies areas for consideration, including:
Clearer, accessible legal guidance
Greater alignment between law and contemporary HIV science
Stigma reduction through public education
Meaningful involvement of people living with HIV in future policy conversations
What happens next
Positive Women Inc, Burnett Foundation Aotearoa, Body Positive, and Toitū te Ao will:
Share these findings across health, legal, and policy sectors
Engage stakeholders in informed discussion
Continue centering lived experience in advocacy and education
Support accurate public understanding of HIV and the law
This report is a foundation for evidence-based dialogue in Aotearoa.
In Senegal, people have been incriminated for their homosexuality and accused of HIV transmission. These arrests follow the announcement by Prime Minister Ousmane Sonko of the tightening of the law penalizing “unnatural acts”. Since these arrests, the actors in the fight against AIDS have seen a decrease in attendance at screening centers.
“Arrest for homosexuality: serious cases of unnatural acts with voluntary transmission of HIV/AIDS,” headlined the Senegalese daily Les Échos, on February 9. About thirty people have been accused of transmitting HIV and incriminated for their homosexuality, which is prohibited by law. The Senegalese government has just toughened this legislation on February 24. These arrests frighten patients with the virus, who no longer go to the Dakar screening center.
“Patients are afraid of being arrested and stigmatized,” explains Dr. Rassoul Diouf, at Fane Hospital, one of Senegal’s main health centers. Usually, this facility welcomes dozens of patients daily for HIV testing and monitoring. But in recent weeks, Dr. Rassoul Diouf has seen a significant drop in consultations.”The convocations for appointments are difficult to happen. We call them but there is reluctance,” he explains to TV5MONDE.
Breach of medical confidentiality
For the actors in the fight against AIDS, this disclosure constitutes a “violation of medical confidentiality“. The National AIDS Council recalls that a law in Senegal protects the identity of people with HIV.
“On an ethical level, this is not normal, but even less on a legal level,” says Dr. Safiatou Thiam, executive secretary of the National Council for the fight against AIDS. “HIV has the particularity of being framed by a law that prohibits the disclosure of people’s status. We do not know how or by what process medical results ended up in the public square,” she explains to TV5MONDE.
Misinformation and confusion about HIV transmission
Actors in the fight against AIDS also deplore confusion about the modes of transmission of the virus. However, Senegal has long been cited as an example for the means put in place to fight HIV. Since the end of the 1990s, the country made treatments accessible. “At the beginning of the epidemic [of HIV, ed.], many countries refused to recognize its existence. But Senegal said: not only does HIV exist, but I will treat it,” explains Dr. Khoudia Sow, doctor and anthropologist.
“When a person follows his treatment properly, he becomes undetectable and can no longer transmit the virus. On the other hand, if these people interrupt their treatment for fear of stigmatization, the risk is that in the short term new transmissions will appear,” she confides. Currently, the HIV prevalence rate in Senegal is estimated at 0.3%, one of the lowest in the region. However, if patients stop taking their treatment, for fear of stigma, this rate could increase in Senegal.
US: HIV criminalisation laws expose Black Americans to disproportionate arrest and prosecution rates
“Look at who’s in political control”: How HIV disclosure laws are steeped in racial bias
HIV criminalization arose in an atmosphere of fearful ignorance, disproportionately harming Black men. But activists are fighting back.
Today, 32 states have laws that criminalize people living with HIV (PLWH). These laws expose PLWH to the risk of prosecution and incarceration for engaging in consensual sexual activity while not disclosing their status. Of those states, 28 enhance criminal penalties based on an individual’s knowledge of their HIV status. In many of these states, arrests and convictions due to HIV criminalization disproportionately impact Black populations, because HIV disproportionately impacts Black populations.
A new study of 16 states by the Williams Institute shows Black Americans are more likely than any other race to be arrested and convicted for HIV-related allegations, and were arrested for HIV-related crimes at higher rates than their overall share of the population. In 64% of the states analyzed, Black Americans faced higher rates of arrest than their share of PLWH in the state. In 75% of the states, Black Americans were convicted at higher rates than their share of PLWH in the state.
Legislation criminalizing the transmission of HIV started in the 1980s, in response to events largely fueled by fear that the AIDS epidemic — which at the time was perceived as gay men’s disease, and was originally called Gay Related Immunodeficiency Syndrome (GRID) — would spread to heterosexuals. In 1987, Ronald Reagan’s Presidential Commission on the HIV Epidemic recommended that states adopt HIV-specific laws in response to rising infection rates among gay men, based on the belief that existing assault laws were too lenient to serve as a deterrent.
In 1990, the Ryan White Comprehensive AIDS Resource Emergency (CARE) Act was enacted, providing funding to states on the condition that their criminal laws addressed intentional HIV exposure and transmission.
Subsequently, flurries of punitive legislation arose amid highly publicized, sensationalized cases involving young Black men, such as that of Nushawn Williams in the late 1990s. Accused of having sex with younger women while HIV-positive, Williams pleaded guilty to reckless endangerment and statutory rape and was sentenced to 12 years in prison. He remains imprisoned after serving his sentence because the New York attorney general initiated involuntary civil commitment proceedings against him just days before his release.
“Available research confirms what we knew back then — criminal laws do not reduce HIV transmission or the behavior that causes it,” says Catherine Hanssens, the founding executive director of The Center for HIV Law and Policy.
Robert Suttle, an HIV criminalization policy expert, tells LGBTQ Nation that these laws became more about control than prevention. “HIV criminalization became a proxy to control certain populations — queer people, sex workers — especially to stop people diagnosed with HIV from having sex,” says Sutter. “It’s never worked.”
Not only do HIV criminalization laws, conceived at a time when an HIV diagnosis was essentially considered a death sentence, fail as preventative measures, but they also eliminate burdens of proof and intent to do harm, which are required under criminal law.
Most of these laws only require simple exposure with the failure to disclose HIV status. Most state laws don’t require evidence of transmission or intent to harm. Several target interactions in which spit and other bodily fluids come into contact with law enforcement, correctional employees, and first responders, criminalizing behavior that has no chance of transmitting HIV.
Again, these laws — which have stood for decades — reflect a time when little was known about how HIV was spread, and a diagnosis was considered fatal.
Black bodies on trial: The case of “Tiger Mandingo”
The case of Michael Johnson, also known by his screen name “Tiger Mandingo,” illustrates many of the problems with HIV-criminalization laws and how they intersect with the historic policing of Black Americans.
Johnson, a Black gay wrestler at Linwood University in St. Charles, Missouri, was arrested in 2013 for not disclosing his HIV-positive status to six former male sex partners, four of whom were white. At the time, Missouri’s law required PLWH to inform their partners of their status, regardless of safe-sex practices. The law did not require intent to transmit or actual transmission of HIV, but only that a person was aware of their status and unable to prove that they informed their partners before engaging in sex.
Johnson faced a stacked deck before his trial even started. Of the 51 potential jurors, only one was non-white. Half said they believed being gay was a choice, and two-thirds believed it was a sin. All were straight, HIV-negative, and believed that PLWH who do not disclose to their partners deserved to be prosecuted. The final jury consisted of four white men, seven white women, and one retired Black nurse. Most of the jurors appeared to be in their 50s or 60s.
Several discrepancies arose during Johnson’s trial. Johnson maintained that he disclosed his status and that all of his partners engaged in consensual sex without condoms. Each of his partners testified that they’d asked if he was “clean” or STD-free, and that he’d assured them that he was. This contradicted what they initially told police. But the jury never heard of these discrepancies, either because his defense attorney failed to raise them or because she was overruled when she did.
Telling people that they are a potential criminal based only on a diagnosed health condition is harmful, particularly to people who have been told for centuries that they are not worthy of equal treatment under the law based on race, sexual orientation, or gender identity.”
Catherine Hanssens, executive director of The Center for HIV Law and Policy.
One partner testified that Johnson had actually infected him, but told the police he’d told Johnson he was HIV-positive when he met him. No genetic evidence linked Johnson’s strain of HIV to the virus in the other men, suggesting that they may have contracted it from someone else.
The prosecution employed stereotypical tropes. Images of Johnson’s penis — from a sex video made with one of his partners — were shown to the nearly all-white, all heterosexual, HIV-negative jury, literally criminalizing his “contagious” Black body, and reducing him to his sex organ, described in graphic, lurid detail in police reports and on the witness stand as “very large” and “too tight” for condoms.
In 2015, the jury sentenced him to 30 years for transmitting HIV without disclosure to six former sexual partners, and 30.5 years for exposing four others without disclosure, for a total of 60.5 years — a longer sentence than many convicted of involuntary manslaughter. The judge ultimately reduced the sentence to 30 years.
However, Johnson served only a fraction of his sentence. His conviction was overturned in December 2016 due to egregious prosecutorial misconduct. Johnson accepted a plea deal and was released from prison on July 7, 2019.
In 2021, Missouri reformed its HIV-criminalization law, downgrading “reckless exposure” of someone to HIV from a Class B felony to a Class D felony. Moving away from the AIDS panic of the 1980s, the law applies to all “serious infections and communicable diseases,” instead of singling out HIV. Prosecutors must now prove someone “knowingly” exposed someone to HIV.
Policing Black bodies in a culture of fear
While HIV criminalization laws were originally targeted at gay men, they represent a small number of actual arrests.
“Based on the best data available, women of color who are sex workers and Black men targeted by police or those currently incarcerated make up most of the arrests and convictions,” Hanssen says.
Hanssen also describes how HIV criminalization laws don’t necessarily impact transmission, but may discourage vulnerable communities from accessing essential resources. “As I’ve suggested, laws based on myths and misconceptions surrounding HIV will perpetuate HIV stigma,” Hanssen said.
HIV-related stigma creates real obstacles for PLWH. The behaviors often associated with acquiring HIV — such as being gay or using intravenous drugs — are still stigmatized, and confirming or disclosing one’s HIV status is still widely perceived as socially dangerous. HIV-related stigma can discourage testing and prevention practices. Individuals may fear confirming their HIV status, let alone accessing education about transmission and prevention. HIV criminalization laws increase those fears.
“But look at who’s in political control — and who controls public health and the legal system. Those systems get off the hook by shifting blame to individuals. Instead of investing money into prevention, education, and awareness, they criminalize people.”
Robert Suttle, an HIV criminalization policy expert
“Telling a newly diagnosed person they will be prosecuted as a felon if they expose another person to HIV may not discourage them from having sex,” she said, “but it might discourage them from entering and staying in health care, particularly when medical mistrust is already so high among the vulnerable populations targeted by these laws.”
This is especially true for Black Americans, among whom medical mistrust may be a deeply rooted reaction to historical exploitation by incidents like the Tuskegee experiment and ongoing systemic racism.
Suttle explains how these laws cause particular harm to Black LGBTQ+ people by creating a culture of fear. “Is the public health system or legal system helping the people they claim to protect?” he asks, “The evidence shows they’re doing more harm than good.”
“For Black people — especially Black LGBTQ+ people — HIV isn’t just a medical condition,” he says. “It’s shaped by laws, policies, and institutions that operate from a culture of fear rather than science, and from control rather than care.”
Hanssen echoes Suttle, saying, “Telling people that they are a potential criminal based only on a diagnosed health condition is harmful, particularly to people who have been told for centuries that they are not worthy of equal treatment under the law based on race, sexual orientation, or gender identity.”
“There is now plenty of evidence demonstrating how HIV criminal laws increase stigma,” says Catherine Hanssens. “These laws create a uniquely harmful, un-American legal standard and produce felony penalties rooted in lack of knowledge about HIV transmission – that alone is enough to demand their repeal.”
California and Washington State have made the biggest changes. Now, both states require proof that someone intended to transmit HIV or actually did so before they can be convicted. They have also removed most laws that made exposure to HIV or other diseases a crime, except in some cases involving sex offenders. Intentional transmission is now a misdemeanor in California, with a maximum sentence of six months, or in Washington State, 30 days.
By comparison:
North Carolina still connects criminal liability to viral load and engagement in care.
Iowa eliminated its sex offender registry requirement and tightened up intent requirements, but added “recklessness” as a standard for liability.
Virginia reformed its bill, but retains felony-level offenses.
Beyond reforms to state laws, Suttle suggests a paradigm shift away from focusing on individuals and toward the legal and justice systems is necessary for effective change.
“In an individualistic society, if HIV is happening, it’s treated like we [PLWH] caused it,” he says. “But no single individual can cause an epidemic. Instead of addressing external factors — poverty, lack of education, lack of access to healthcare — systems punish individuals. Those conditions are by design, not because people ‘created’ HIV.”
“But look at who’s in political control — and who controls public health and the legal system. Those systems get off the hook by shifting blame to individuals. Instead of investing money into prevention, education, and awareness, they criminalize people.”
“For Black LGBTQ communities, this is a matter of survival,” Suttle says. “HIV in America today isn’t simply defined by medicine. It’s defined by whether laws and institutions will catch up with science, provide equity, and understand the reality we’re living in.”
Subscribe to the LGBTQ Nation newsletter and be the first to know about the latest headlines shaping LGBTQ+ communities worldwide.
Terrance Heath is a longtime LGBT equality activist, writer, and award winning blogger. He lives in Chevy Chase, Maryland, with his two sons.
US: Report from the Williams Institute examines how HIV stigma contributes to HIV criminalisation
HIV stigma is pervasive and increasing among US adults
This study uses data from the nationally representative General Social Survey to assess the prevalence of HIV stigma in the U.S. and examine the ways HIV stigma contributes to the criminalisation of people living with HIV.
Today, U.S. Representative Mark Pocan (WI-02), Chair of the HIV/AIDS Caucus, introduced the HIV Is Not a Crime Awareness Day resolution,which recognizes nationwide February 28 as “HIV Is Not a Crime Awareness Day.” This is a call to action to end the criminalization of people living with HIV and to promote science-based public health policy.
“In 2026, it should not be a crime to live with HIV, but in nearly 3/4ths of the states, there are still HIV-specific exposure or transmission laws, and more than half of the states impose enhanced criminal penalties based solely on a person’s HIV status. That is wrong. It’s long past time to remove the stigma of HIV/AIDS. This resolution will encourage the repeal of outdated laws, promote medically accurate HIV education, and support increased funding for prevention, treatment, and care. Having a disease should not be a crime. Plain and simple.”
Co-sponsors include: Mark Pocan (WI-02), Steve Cohen (TN-09), Danny Davis (IL-07), Josh Gottheimer (NJ-05), LaMonica McIver (NJ-10), Gwen Moore (WI-04), Eleanor Holmes Norton (DC), Delia Ramirez (IL-03), Mark Takano (CA-39), Bonnie Watson Coleman (NJ-12)
Endorsing organizations include: Advocates for Youth, AIDS United, ANEA Coalition, Center for Health Law and Policy Innovation, Equality Federation, Health Not Prisons Collective, HIV Medicine Association, HIV+Hepatitis Policy Institute, National Working Positive Coalition, National Working Positive Coalition, PWN-NYS, Ribbon-A Center of Excellence, SAGE, Save HIV Funding Campaign, SIECUS: Sex Ed for Social Change, Strategies for High Impact, The Elizabeth Taylor AIDS Foundation, U.S. People Living with HIV Caucus, ALINT Consulting, Association of Nurses in AIDS Care, Florida National Organization for Women, Miss Trans Star National, NASTAD, NHAAN, NMAC, Positive Women’s Network-USA, PrEP4All, Pwn-Pa, RiseUpToHIV, SisterReach, The 6:52 Project Foundation, The Center for HIV Law and Policy, The Sero Project, The Well Project, Treatment Action Group, Women’s Health & Evolutionary Wellness, AIDS Foundation Chicago, Colorado Organizations and Individuals Responding to HIV/AIDS (CORA), Health Not Handcuffs Alliance – SC, HIV Modernization Movement-Indiana, Louisiana Coalition on Criminalization and Health, Maryland Network Against Domestic Violence, Positive Iowans Taking Charge, TENT, Vivent Health, Vivent Health, We the Positive Network/My Brother’s Keeper, Equality California, Silver State Equality, AIDS Foundation Chicago, Arianna’s Place, Five Horizons Health Services, ACT UP Cleveland, CareSouth Carolina (Care Innovations), Posada Strategy Consulting
In the case known as the ‘alleged homosexuals’ case, the classification of deliberate transmission of HIV/AIDS is the subject of heated debate. However, according to a note from the National Council for the Fight against AIDS (CNLS), this offence remains one of the most complex to prove in law.
The offence of ‘deliberate transmission of HIV/AIDS’ introduces a demanding scientific dimension to the case of the ‘alleged homosexuals’. They are being prosecuted for ‘unnatural acts, criminal association, money laundering and drug trafficking’. According to the National Council for the Fight against AIDS (CNLS), the justice system must rely on precise, consistent and solidly established evidence. In a note, the entity headed by Dr Safiatou Thiam states that ‘proof of voluntary transmission of HIV is difficult’. The CNLS notes that it ‘is a particularly complex process, involving legal, scientific and medico-legal aspects’.
The 2010 Senegalese law on HIV provides for penalties against any person who, knowing that they are HIV-positive, deliberately exposes others to the risk of infection.
However, ‘the establishment of this offence is based on the cumulative evidence of several factors,’ the note specifies. The first essential element is knowledge of one’s HIV status. “It must be proven that the accused knew they were HIV-positive at the time of the offence.
Without this prior knowledge, intent or gross negligence cannot be established,” emphasises the CNLS. The second requirement is proof of risky behaviour. Thus, the analysis is not limited to the statements of the parties. ‘The risk assessment also takes into account the therapeutic situation (ARV treatment, undetectable viral load or not),’ states the text. This clarification is important because a person undergoing effective treatment, with an undetectable viral load, ‘does not transmit HIV through sexual contact (U=U: undetectable = untransmittable)’.
From a scientific point of view, proving the causal link is just as delicate. “It is not enough for two people to be living with HIV. It must be demonstrated that the transmission did indeed come from the person being prosecuted,” adds the CNLS. Moreover, the body maintains that phylogenicetic analyses have their limitations: ‘However, even in cases of high genetic proximity, this analysis alone does not prove direct transmission or the exact chronology of events.’ Finally, the element of intent remains central. ‘To qualify as deliberate transmission in the criminal sense, it must be proven that there was either a deliberate intention to transmit the virus or an awareness of the risk associated with accepting it,’ explains the CNLS.
Dans l’affaire dite des « présumés homosexuels », la qualification de transmission volontaire du Vih/Sida suscite de vifs débats. Pourtant, selon une note du Conseil national de lutte contre le Sida (Cnls), cette infraction demeure l’une des plus complexes à prouver en droit.
L’infraction « transmission volontaire du Vih/Sida » introduit une dimension scientifique exigeante dans l’affaire des « présumés homosexuels ». Ils sont poursuivis pour « actes contre nature, association de malfaiteurs, blanchiment de capitaux et trafic de drogue ». Selon le Conseil national de lutte contre le Sida (Cnls), la justice devra s’appuyer sur des preuves précises, concordantes et solidement établies. Dans une note, l’entité dirigée par le Dr Safiatou Thiam renseigne que la « preuve de la transmission volontaire du Vih est difficile ». Le Cnls relève, en effet, qu’elle « constitue une démarche particulièrement complexe, à la fois juridique, scientifique et médico-légale ». La loi sénégalaise de 2010 relative au
Vih prévoit des sanctions contre toute personne qui, en connaissance de sa séropositivité, expose délibérément autrui à un risque de contamination. Mais, « l’établissement de cette infraction repose sur la réunion cumulative de plusieurs éléments probants », précise la note. Le premier élément indispensable est la connaissance du statut sérologique. « Il doit être démontré que la personne mise en cause savait qu’elle était séropositive au moment des faits. Sans cette connaissance préalable, l’intention ou la faute caractérisée ne peut être retenue », souligne le Cnls. Deuxième exigence : la preuve d’un comportement à risque. Ainsi, l’analyse ne se limite pas aux déclarations des parties. « L’évaluation du risque tient aussi compte de la situation thérapeutique (prise d’Arv, charge virale indétectable ou non) », énonce le texte. Cette précision est majeure, car une personne sous traitement efficace, avec une charge virale indétectable, « ne transmet pas le Vih par voie sexuelle (i = i : indétectable = intransmissible) ».
Sur le plan scientifique, la démonstration du lien de causalité est tout aussi délicate. « Il ne suffit pas que deux personnes vivent avec le Vih. Il faut démontrer que la transmission provient bien de la personne poursuivie », ajoute le Cnls. D’ailleurs, soutient l’organe, les analyses phylogénétiques ont leurs limites : « Toutefois, même en cas de forte proximité génétique, cette analyse ne prouve pas à elle seule la transmission directe ni la chronologie exacte des faits ». Enfin, l’élément intentionnel reste central. « Pour qualifier la transmission volontaire au sens pénal, il faut prouver soit la volonté délibérée de transmettre le virus, soit la conscience du risque associée à son acceptation », explique le Cnls.
Senegal: Following recent arrests, the National AIDS council calls for an approach based on science and human rights
The CNLS warns against judicial and social excesses
The executive secretariat of the National Council for the fight against AIDS (CnLS) published yesterday a technical note warning of the health, legal and social consequences of recent arrests for “unnatural acts” and transmission of HIV.
The executive secretariat of the National Council for the Fight against AIDS (CNLS) published yesterday a technical note warning of the health, legal and social consequences of recent arrests for “unnatural acts” and transmission of HIV. The institution fears a decline in screening, a break in treatments and a rise in stigma, calling on the authorities to favour an approach based on science, public health and respect for human rights.
“Health, legal and social impact of the arrest of people for unnatural acts and voluntary transmission of HIV”. This is the title of the technical note published yesterday by the National Council for the Fight against AIDS (CNLS), which proposes an in-depth analysis of the potentially disastrous consequences of mismanagement of news related to HIV transmission.
According to the CNLS, the country has a concentrated HIV epidemic, characterized by a low prevalence in the general population (0.3%) and a high prevalence within some key groups: 27% in men having sex with men, 6.4% in women sex workers, 5.2% in drug users and 2% in detainees. Faced with this situation, they maintain that the national response is based on equitable access to screening, prevention means and universal antiretroviral treatment.
According to them, these approaches have reduced new infections, improved the quality of life of people living with HIV and limited transmission in the general population. However, the CNLS believes that the high media coverage of the arrests of twelve (12) people has aroused a strong reaction from public opinion and rekindled tensions around sexuality, HIV and human rights, raising major health, legal and social issues.
Blow for early screening and continuity of care
First, in terms of health, the CNLS fears that legal proceedings or the disclosure of serological status will dissuade some people, especially from the most vulnerable groups, from voluntarily using screening. “This reluctance limits the early detection of people living with HIV and their rapid access to treatment, which is essential to interrupt transmission. Nearly 90% of people with HIV are tested to date and under treatment and 92% of them no longer transmit the disease,” reads the technical note published by the CNLS.
Worse, it says, the continuity of care is also threatened. Indeed, it is noted, for fear of stigma or public exposure, some people living with HIV can discontinue their antiretroviral treatment. “These ruptures increase the risk of medical complications, resistance to treatments and transmission of the virus, with a direct impact on national health indicators,” says the CNLS. It is also established that when the possession of condoms, the use of screening or adherence to treatment are perceived as burdens in legal proceedings, it constitutes a major risk to public health.
The CNLS thus draws attention to the fact that this situation discourages prevention behaviour and promotes silent circulation of the virus, increasing the number of people unaware of their serological status and the risks of transmission among the general population.
“Unauthorised disclosure of serological status is penalised by the HIV law of 2010…”
With regard to the legal issues of arrests for unnatural acts and transmission of HIV, the CNLS recalls at first glance that the voluntary transmission of HIV is a crime under the law. However, he says, its legal qualification, as provided for by the 2010 HIV Act, presupposes the meeting of several constituent elements: proven harm, a direct causal link and a deliberate intention to harm. In practice, he says, the establishment of these elements remains complex. The demonstration of intentionality is particularly difficult and cannot be based on serological status alone. It requires proof that the person knew his status, that he voluntarily exposed others to risk without prior information and that he had the obvious will to transmit the virus,” informs the CNLS, which adds that proof of the causal link and the anteriority of the infection requires specialized medical and biological expertise, rarely available in the context of ordinary judicial proceedings, thus exposing to a risk of judicial errors.
The CNLS also reports that scientific data establish that a person living with HIV on effective antiretroviral treatment, with an undetectable viral load, does not transmit the virus. And that ignorance of these evidences can lead to misinterpretations of the facts. As a result, he argues that excessive or imprecise criminalisation of HIV transmission can produce counterproductive effects by discouraging voluntary screening, as ignorance of status is sometimes perceived as legal protection. The CNLS argues that respect for the presumption of innocence, privacy and confidentiality of medical data remains a fundamental requirement. “The unauthorised disclosure of serological status is penalised by the 2010 HIV law and can engage the responsibility of the State, with regard to Senegal’s international commitments,” he said.
Plea for a circular for judicial actors integrating current scientific data on HIV
Still in the technical note of the CNLS, it is established that on the social level, the arrests and communication that accompany them may increase the stigma and discrimination against people living with HIV. “The amalgam between sexual orientations and serological status reinforces prejudices and further marginalizes already vulnerable groups,” the document points out.
Moreover, the CNLS fears that the people concerned will be subject to social and family exclusion, and will be victims of attacks on their dignity as well as verbal, psychological or even physical violence, weakening social cohesion. Another concern for the CNLS is that community organisations and civil society actors, essential to prevention and awareness, can reduce their activities for fear of stigmatisation or reprisals, leading to a decrease in social mobilisation and a weakening of prevention mechanisms. Faced with this situation, the CNLS believes that a balanced approach, based on public health, respect for human rights and the rule of law, is essential. They also ask the Prime Minister to instruct the Keeper of the Seals to disseminate a circular to judicial actors integrating current scientific data on HIV.
——————————————–
Le CNLS met en garde contre des dérives judiciaires et sociales
Le secrétariat exécutif du Conseil national de lutte contre le sida (CnLS) a publié hier une note technique alertant sur les conséquences sanitaires, juridiques et sociales des récentes arrestations pour “actes contre nature” et transmission du VIH.
Le secrétariat exécutif du Conseil national de lutte contre le sida (CNLS) a publié hier une note technique alertant sur les conséquences sanitaires, juridiques et sociales des récentes arrestations pour “actes contre nature” et transmission du VIH. L’institution redoute un recul du dépistage, une rupture des traitements et une montée de la stigmatisation, appelant les autorités à privilégier une approche fondée sur la science, la santé publique et le respect des droits humains.
«Impact sanitaire, juridique et social de l’arrestation de personnes pour actes contre nature et transmission volontaire du VIH». Tel est l’intitulé de la note technique publiée hier par le Conseil national de lutte contre le sida (CNLS), qui propose une analyse approfondie des conséquences potentiellement désastreuses d’une mauvaise gestion de l’actualité liée à la transmission du VIH.
Selon le CNLS, le pays présente une épidémie de VIH de type concentrée, caractérisée par une faible prévalence dans la population générale (0,3 %) et une prévalence élevée au sein de certains groupes clés : 27% chez les hommes ayant des relations sexuelles avec des hommes, 6,4% chez les femmes travailleuses du sexe, 5,2% chez les consommateurs de drogues et 2%chez les personnes détenues. Face à cette situation, il soutient que la riposte nationale repose sur l’accès équitable au dépistage, aux moyens de prévention et au traitement antirétroviral universel.
A l’en croire, ces approches ont permis de réduire les nouvelles infections, d’améliorer la qualité de vie des personnes vivant avec le VIH et de limiter la transmission dans la population générale. Cependant, le CNLS estime que la forte médiatisation des arrestations de douze (12) personnes a suscité une vive réaction de l’opinion publique et ravivé les tensions autour de la sexualité, du VIH et des droits humains, soulevant des enjeux sanitaires, juridiques et sociaux majeurs.
Coup porté au dépistage précoce et à la continuité des soins
D’abord, sur le plan sanitaire, le CNLS craint que les poursuites judiciaires ou la divulgation du statut sérologique dissuade certaines personnes, notamment issues des groupes les plus vulnérables, de recourir volontairement au dépistage. “Cette réticence limite le dépistage précoce des personnes vivant avec le VIH et leur accès rapide au traitement, pourtant essentiel pour interrompre la transmission. Près de 90% des personnes atteintes de VIH sont dépistées à ce jour et sous traitement et 92% d’entre elles ne transmettent plus la maladie”, lit-on dans la note technique publiée par le CNLS.
Pis, dit-il, la continuité des soins est également menacée. En effet, note-t-on, par peur de stigmatisation ou d’exposition publique, certaines personnes vivant avec le VIH peuvent interrompre leur traitement antirétroviral. “Ces ruptures augmententles risques de complications médicales, de résistance aux traitements et de transmission du virus, avec un impact direct sur les indicateurs nationaux de santé”, confie le CNLS. Il est également établi que lorsque la possession de préservatifs, le recours au dépistage ou l’adhésion au traitement sont perçus comme des éléments à charge dans des procédures judiciaires, cela constitue un risque majeur pour la santé publique.
Le CNLS attire ainsi l’attention sur le fait que cette situation décourage les comportements de prévention et favorise une circulation silencieuse du virus, augmentant le nombre de personnes ignorant leur statut sérologique et les risques de transmission au sein de la population générale.
«La divulgation non autorisée du statut sérologique est pénalisée par la loi VIH de 2010…»
En ce qui concerne les enjeux juridiques des arrestations pour actes contre nature et transmission du VIH, le CNLS rappelle de prime abord que la transmission volontaire du VIH constitue un délit au regard de la loi. Toutefois, fait-il savoir, sa qualification juridique, telle que prévue par la loi VIH de 2010, suppose la réunion de plusieurs éléments constitutifs : un préjudice avéré, un lien de causalité direct et une intention délibérée de nuire. Dans la pratique, précise-t-il, l’établissement de ces éléments demeure complexe.“La démonstration de l’intentionnalité est particulièrement difficile et ne saurait reposer sur le seul statut sérologique. Elle nécessite la preuve que la personne connaissait son statut, qu’elle a volontairement exposé autrui au risque sans information préalable et qu’elle avaitla volonté manifeste de transmettre le virus”, renseigne le CNLS qui ajoute que la preuve du lien de causalité et de l’antériorité de l’infection requiert des expertises médicales et biologiques spécialisées, rarement disponibles dans le cadre des procédures judiciaires ordinaires, exposant ainsi à un risque d’erreurs judiciaires.
Le CNLS informe également que les données scientifiques établissent qu’une personne vivant avec le VIH sous traitement antirétroviral efficace, avec une charge virale indétectable, ne transmet pas le virus. Et que la méconnaissance de ces évidences peut conduire à des interprétations erronées des faits. De ce fait, il soutient qu’une criminalisation excessive ou imprécise de la transmission du VIH peut produire des effets contreproductifs en décourageant le dépistage volontaire, l’ignorance du statut étant parfois perçue comme une protection juridique. Le CNLS soutient dans la foulée que le respect de la présomption d’innocence, de la vie privée et de la confidentialité des données médicales demeure une exigence fondamentale. “La divulgation non autorisée du statut sérologique est pénalisée par la loi VIH de 2010 et peut engager la responsabilité de l’État, au regard des engagements internationaux du Sénégal”, a-t-il fait entendre.
Plaidoyer pour une circulaire à l’attention des acteurs judiciaires intégrant les données scientifiques actuelles sur le VIH
Toujours dans la note technique du CNLS, il est établi que sur le plan social, les arrestations et la communication qui les accompagnent, risquent d’accentuer la stigmatisation et la discrimination à l’encontre des personnes vivant avec le VIH. “L’amalgame entre orientations sexuelles et statut sérologique renforce les préjugés et marginalise davantage des groupes déjà vulnérables”, souligne le document.
D’ailleurs, le CNLS craint que les personnes concernées fassent l’objet d’exclusions sociales et familiales, et soient victimes d’atteintes à leur dignité ainsi qu’à des violences verbales, psychologiques, voire physiques, fragilisant la cohésion sociale. Autre préoccupation pour le CNLS, les organisations communautaires et les acteurs de la société civile, essentiels à la prévention et à la sensibilisation, peuvent réduire leurs activités par crainte de stigmatisation ou de représailles, entraînant une baisse de la mobilisation sociale et un affaiblissement des mécanismes de prévention. Face à cette situation, le CNLS pense qu’une approche équilibrée, fondée sur la santé publique, le respect des droits humains et l’État de droit, est indispensable. Il sollicite d’ailleurs le Premier Ministre afin qu’il instruise le Garde des Sceaux de diffuser une circulaire à l’attention des acteurs judiciaires intégrant les données scientifiques actuelles sur le VIH.
No-cost legal clinics available for NYC immigrants
If you are an immigrant in NYC, free legal clinics are available to help you. At these clinics, you can speak with a lawyer or a supervised law student at no cost. Many clinics help people regardless of immigration status and offer services in multiple languages. Clinics can help with immigration cases, housing issues, work problems, family matters, and other legal questions.
Pro-bono lawyers may have a full case load or have specific requirements for the clients they are able to see at this time. As an alternative, you can consider visiting a legal clinic which may have more opportunities advise you on your legal issue.
Most of these clinics will require an appointment, so you will need to email or call in advance.
Free, confidential help is available, and asking for help will not affect your immigration status.
Here are free legal clinics in New York City where you can get free legal advice, access to representation, or referrals.
Asian American Bar Association of New York
Partnering with local community organizations, the Asian American Bar Association of New York runs free monthly legal clinics in Manhattan, Brooklyn, and Flushing. People can check the Pro Bono & Community Service Committee (PBCS) calendar for details about each scheduled clinic. Interpreters are available.
Queens pro bono clinic: First Wednesday of the month from 6:30 to 8 p.m. at AAFE One Flushing Community Center (133-29 41st Avenue, 2nd Floor, Flushing)
Manhattan pro bono clinic: Third Wednesday of the month from 6:30 to 8 p.m. at AAFE Community Center (111 Norfolk Street, Manhattan)
Brooklyn pro bono clinic: Held bi-monthly on the second Saturday of the month from 12:30 to 2:30 p.m. at CPC Brooklyn Community Services (4101 8th Avenue, Brooklyn)
City Council Member Susan Zhuang’s office
Susan Zhuang’s office offers free legal clinics every Friday at 6514 20th Avenue in Brooklyn. People can call (718) 307-7151 or email District43@council.nyc.gov to make an appointment.
LGBT Bar NY offers free drop-in legal clinics for the LGBTQ community. The clinic is held on Tuesday evenings from 6 to 8 p.m. at 208 West 13th Street in Manhattan. No appointment is needed, but people should arrive before 5:45 p.m. to make sure they can be helped.
New York Legal Assistance Group (NYLAG)
NYLAG runs free legal counseling, including help with immigration issues. It is based in Lower Manhattan and also offers mobile clinics across New York City. People can check their mobile legal help calendar for regular clinic days and locations.
Urban Justice Center
The Urban Justice Center offers free legal clinics at City Council Amanda Farías’s district office (778 Castle Avenue, Bronx). These are held on the second and last Monday of every month from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. You must call (718) 792-1140 to make an appointment.
Need family law help? You can make an appointment at the family law clinic, which is held every Wednesday at the Urban Justice Center (40 Rector Street, 9th Floor, Manhattan) from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. You must call (833) 321-4387 to make an appointment.
If you can’t make it to the Manhattan office, you can also request a virtual appointment for family lawyers. Make an appointment by emailing cprisco@council.nyc.gov.
In 2025, HIV criminalisation remained a persistent, global human rights and public health failure – visible both in the rise in reported prosecutions and in the continued mismatch between HIV science and legal practice. Despite significant law reform momentum in several jurisdictions, we found evidence of unjust arrests, charges, and convictions reported in 27 countries. However, while the number of reported HIV criminalisation cases increased in 2025, this rise was driven largely by intensified enforcement and reporting in a limited number of countries, rather than a widening of criminalisation across new jurisdictions.
Rising case numbers concentrated in fewer countries
Our Global HIV Criminalisation Database included 112 reported cases between January 1st and December 31st, 2025. This represents the highest annual total recorded in the database in recent years – almost double the number documented in 2024, and more than twice the annual totals seen between 2021 and 2023.
A defining feature of 2025 was how strongly case reports clustered in specific countries. However, unless cases are systematically reported either in official, public-facing court databases, relying on media and/or civil society reported cases means we are only seeing the most visible portion of a much larger reality.
Nevertheless, one country – Uzbekistan – accounted for more than half of all reported cases. This is partly because Uzbek courts publish all HIV criminalisation cases online, but mainly due to an exceptionally broad and punitive legal framework combined with extensive mandatory HIV testing. Article 113 of the Criminal Code criminalises mere awareness of HIV status, with no distinction between exposure and transmission and no defences for condoms, viral suppression, or informed consent, creating a very low threshold for prosecution. Mandatory testing laws targeting key populations and returning migrants further increase detection without any link to alleged criminal conduct, resulting in more people being identified and prosecuted than anywhere else.
Across the 2025 cases list, several recurring patterns stood out:
Non-disclosure and “exposure” prosecutions remained the default legal response, with multiple non-disclosure prosecutions in the United States proceeding without allegations of transmission, and exposure-only cases continuing in Russia despite no demonstrated risk of harm.
Criminal cases disproportionately arose from contact between law enforcement and marginalised people – including gay men, sex workers, trans people, and people already in detention – illustrating how HIV criminalisation disproportionately arises in contexts shaped by stigma, surveillance, and law enforcement contact with marginalised communities.
Criminalisation extended beyond sexual contexts, with no-risk conduct framed as intentional harm, including spitting prosecutions in Canada and the United States, and prosecutions linked to needle or blood incidents in the United Kingdom and Brazil.
Cross-border consequences persisted even after legal “wins”, illustrated by Ireland’s deportation of a man whose conviction had been overturned by the Supreme Court, and by the persistent risk of immigration and residency consequences in Canada and the United States, where HIV-related prosecutions can have lasting effects beyond the criminal process itself.
Legacy criminalisation continued to create procedural chaos, as seen in Zimbabwe where prosecutions and litigation persisted despite the HIV criminalisation law having previously been repealed, and in countries such as Russia where outdated HIV-specific provisions continue to be applied alongside general criminal law, producing inconsistent charging practices.
Legal reform: progress alongside persistent risk
Despite a challenging political environment, 2025 saw several concrete legal and policy developments that signalled continued momentum toward reform, particularly at the sub-national level.
In the United States, state-level action remained the primary driver of change. In Maryland, the governor signed legislation repealing the state’s HIV-specific criminal statute, removing a law long criticised for its incompatibility with current scientific evidence. North Dakota also enacted legislation addressing outdated HIV criminalisation provisions, narrowing their scope and reducing the reach of HIV-specific penalties.
In Mexico, reform efforts continued across multiple jurisdictions. Baja California eliminated “danger of contagion” language from its criminal code, and advocacy to repeal or amend similar provisions continued in other states, alongside renewed engagement at the federal level.
In Ukraine, parliament approved the first reading of legislation to remove HIV criminalisation from the Criminal Code. While the law reform process has stalled in the context of ongoing conflict, the move towards repeal represents a significant legislative step and an important signal of political commitment under difficult circumstances.
Alongside these gains, 2025 also highlighted the fragility of reform and the persistence of resistance in several settings.
In Canada, frustration grew over the continued absence of comprehensive federal reform of HIV non-disclosure criminalisation. Despite longstanding commitments and extensive advocacy, progress remained stalled, reinforcing concerns about the ongoing misuse of the criminal law.
In Australia, debate intensified in South Australia and New South Wales around the use of mandatory or forced HIV testing powers. Public health experts and community advocates raised concerns about the scientific basis, proportionality, and potential harms of these approaches.
And the United States faced a renewed and deeply troubling risk of regression under the shadow of the Trump administration’s domestic and global anti-rights agenda. Proposals to expand sexually transmitted infection criminalisation – including legislative initiatives in Louisiana – signalled how rapidly decades of hard-won progress can be dismantled when punishment, surveillance, and moral regulation are reasserted as policy priorities. In this climate, HIV criminalisation once again becomes a ready tool of control, underscoring how fragile reform remains and how urgently sustained resistance is required.
Looking ahead to 2026
Legal reform is both possible and underway, yet unjust prosecutions persist – and in some settings appear to be accelerating – even as HIV science has never been clearer about the effectiveness of treatment and the realities of transmission risk. The 112 reported cases are not merely a statistic; they reflect the continued, routine embedding of stigma within criminal legal systems, where outdated assumptions are enforced despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
In 2026, the HIV Justice Network will prioritise consolidating reform gains while confronting jurisdictions where criminalisation remains entrenched or is intensifying. This will include targeted advocacy and capacity-building in high-volume prosecution settings; strengthened documentation and analysis of enforcement patterns to support evidence-based reform; and deeper engagement with prosecutors, judges, and policymakers to bring law and practice into line with contemporary HIV science.
Central to this work will be two UNAIDS-supported initiatives: the completion and dissemination of Good Practices in HIV Decriminalisation, providing practical, jurisdiction-tested guidance for lawmakers and advocates; and the expansion of the Expert Consensus Statement on the Science of HIV in the Context of Criminal Law to explicitly address breastfeeding, ensuring that evolving evidence is accurately reflected in legal and policy frameworks.
Together, these efforts aim to prevent new prosecutions, reduce harm, and accelerate a coordinated, science-based push to end HIV criminalisation worldwide.
You can select your preferred language from the 'Select Language' menu at the top of the page.
Continue
We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. By continuing to use our site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. You can change your cookie settings at any time if you want. Find out more in our Privacy & Cookie Policy.