US: Robert Suttle reflects on outdated HIV-specific criminalisation laws and the work of advocates to change them all over the US

by 
 
UNDER LOUISIANA LAW, YOU CAN WIND UP WITH A $5,000 FINE AND FIVE YEARS’ JAIL TIME IF SOMEONE COMES IN CONTACT WITH YOUR SPIT — IF YOU’RE HIV POSITIVE. THESE LAWS ARE BASED ON OUTDATED SCIENCE AND MULTIPLE ORGANIZATIONS ARE WORKING TO CHANGE THEM.

Whenever Robert Suttle thinks about his time in jail, his eyes go soft, he lets out a long breath and his lips purse a bit. It’s noticeable that he — after almost a decade — still gets emotional about what put him behind bars.

In 2008, while working as an assistant clerk for the Louisiana Court of Appeals, Suttle went through a bitter breakup that resulted in a tit-for-tat trial, ending in Suttle being sentenced to six months in jail and registering as a sex offender for intentionally exposing a sexual partner to HIV. But there was no transmission of the virus.

And even though Suttle says he disclosed his status to his partner and that the sex was consensual, it didn’t matter much under Louisiana’s HIV exposure law, which states that anyone with HIV or AIDS who has unprotected sex can be tried and charged with a nonviolent felony. Offenders can be sentenced to up to 10 years in prison and must register as a sex offender in some cases.

But Louisiana’s intentional HIV exposure statute, enacted in 1987, revised in 1993 and again in 2011, is out of date and not backed by science. For example, spitting and biting are considered grounds to be charged for criminal exposure to AIDS, even though it’s impossible to transfer the virus through spit and exceedingly rare for HIV to be passed on through biting (and the risk is nonexistent if the skin isn’t broken).  

What’s more, Suttle, who was diagnosed with HIV in 2002, couldn’t pass the virus on anyway. Antiretroviral treatment had made his viral load undetectable, which means the level of HIV in his blood was so low that it would’ve been impossible to transmit.

“I didn’t quite understand how it could come to this,” Suttle says. “It was being gay and HIV positive that led me to … being criminally liable.”

As more people become aware of possible criminal charges — thanks in part to local reporting on alleged offenders — some of those most at-risk are unwilling to get tested. Criminalizing one’s status has created a stigma, advocates say, which in turn can endanger whole communities.

“[People know] that if they test positive, they can get charged or arrested,” says Gina Brown, an HIV and AIDS activist in New Orleans who is HIV positive. “The laws need to change, and people in charge need to get educated.”

Across the nation, HIV transmissions have been steadily declining since the beginning of the decade. At the same time, the demographics of the disease have changed. No longer does HIV primarily affect gay men; today, those who are most at risk also include injection drug users and poor people of color, particularly in the South. Despite that shift, regulations and laws that criminalize one’s HIV status still abound, and they have roots in outdated science that has largely been debunked.

There are currently 26 states with HIV-specific criminalization laws, some of which penalize behavior regardless of whether the virus was actually transmitted. That number was higher in the 1980s and ’90s, when fear of HIV — and myths around how it spread — was rampant. Lawmakers claimed at the time that the statutes were meant to protect the general public. Instead, they have had the opposite effect: Since you can’t be prosecuted if you don’t know your status, there’s an incentive to not getting tested. Studies have also shown that HIV criminalization has little to no effect on deterring people from spreading the virus willingly, and in fact, such laws have only worsened its spread.

Nearly all of the states with the highest rates of new HIV diagnoses — in 2017, Louisiana ranked third — have HIV-specific exposure laws still on the books.

“People don’t know the collateral consequences,” says Suttle, who now works as an assistant director at Sero Project, a nonprofit that fights stigma and discrimination by focusing on HIV criminalization. “These laws hinder people from getting care.”

Suttle says the biggest obstacle is education, especially among people who still view HIV and AIDS as a death sentence.

“Education of the masses cannot be stressed enough. You can talk to anybody, and people honestly think that [people charged under HIV exposure laws] should be fully prosecuted and locked up,” Suttle says, adding that Sero Project has tried to humanize people living with HIV through anti-criminalization campaigns, lobbying and public outreach.

Sero Project is one of only a handful of national organizations — the Elizabeth Taylor AIDS Foundation and the Center for HIV Law and Policy are two others — that have been on the front lines of fighting against HIV criminalization.

This year, Sero Project, in partnership with the Positive Women’s Network, launched a training academy to teach advocates how to organize and repeal state HIV criminalization laws. In South Carolina, Sero Project’s training helped establish a coalition of 50 lawmakers, advocates and nonprofits to try and change the state’s HIV criminalization laws.

“They gave us the tools to do our own work here within our community, and educate people. Now we have more and more people who are interested, because every time we get out and share with the community, we’re getting more people asking about the laws,” says Stacy Jennings, chair of the Positive Women’s Network regional chapter in South Carolina. “It’s sad that [people living with HIV] don’t know [about the laws] because they should know. Every chance we get we’re teaching them.”

As a result of Sero Project’s efforts to get communities educated on local laws, Suttle has seen a sea change in the number of people coming forward to fight the stigma around being HIV positive.

And that’s been helpful in places like Louisiana, where advocates say the need for educating and empowering people to get tested and stay healthy is dire.

“We actually have been able to get into the offices of legislators and tell them why this law is outdated and plain wrong,” says Brown, the AIDS activist. “We have some of the highest rates of HIV transmission in the country, and that won’t get better so long as there are laws that actively make people fearful of getting tested.”

—

This is the third installment in NationSwell’s multimedia series “Positive in the South,” which explores the HIV crisis in the Southern U.S., and profiles the people and organizations working to alleviate it.

Published in NationSwell on December 22, 2018

Kenya: Five people living with HIV file petition at the High Court in Nairobi to declare HIV criminalisation law unconstitutional

Overturn law criminalising deliberate transmission of HIV, say petitioners

Five people living with HIV have petitioned the judiciary to declare unconstitutional a law that makes it illegal to transmit the virus and other sexually transmitted infections.

The petitioners said the law makes it almost criminal for HIV-positive people to marry and for women living with the virus to give birth and raise children.

The petition targets Section 26 of the Sexual Offences Act, which criminalises intentional transmission of HIV even among married couples.

Those found guilty can be jailed a minimum 15 years or for life.

“Thousands of discordant couples and breastfeeding mothers living all over Kenya run the risk of being arrested and charged under this provision if they come forward for HIV testing,” said M.A, the fourth petitioner representing discordant couples.

The petition was filed at the High Court in Nairobi on Monday with the help of the Kenya Legal and Ethical Issues Network on HIV and Aids.

“The key to a successful HIV response and ending Aids is making sure everyone with HIV knows their status and gets on treatment. These laws make that impossible,” the petitioner said.

A growing global consensus amongst experts and institutions such the World Health Organisation and Unaids show that laws criminalising HIV transmission weaken the ability of governments to end the Aids epidemic.

The sexual offences Act section 26 says: “any person who, having actual knowledge that he or she is infected with HIV or any other life threatening sexually transmitted disease intentionally, knowingly and willfully transmits it… is liable upon conviction to imprisonment for a term of not less 15 years but which may be for life.”

Kelin boss Alan Maleche said this is one of the worst HIV criminalization laws in the world.

“This petition will not only safeguard the rights of those living with and affected by HIV and other sexually transmitted infections but also help alleviate the discrimination and stigma they face and help Kenya remain on track in achieving the 2020 UNAIDS Fast Track targets in ending Aids,” he said yesterday.

In 2015, the High Court declared section 24 of the HIV and Aids Prevention and Control Act unconstitutional.

The section also criminalised intentional spread of HIV, instituting a maximum jail-term of seven years with the option of a fine.

Nelson Otwoma, the Director at the National Empowerment Network of People living with HIV/AIDS in Kenya, said HIV criminalization laws are also notorious for abuse and arbitrary enforcement.

“Such abuse will always be targeted at persons living with, vulnerable to or believed to be living with HIV whether or not their actions were culpable and whether or not their actions exposed another to the risk of contracting HIV,” he said.

Published on December 13, 2018 in the Star

US: Q & A with Sen. Scott Wiener, one of the authors of Senate Bill 239 that modernised HIV criminalisation law in California

Successful HIV Criminalization Reform in California: Q and A with Sen. Scott Wiener

The majority of states have laws that criminalize activities engaged in by HIV-positive people that are not criminalized when engaged in by the rest of the population.

Many of these laws improperly single out HIV over other infectious diseases and reflect a lack of understanding of both how HIV spreads and how it can be treated.

In 2017, California passed legislation which modernized and improved California’s HIV criminalization law. One of the authors of the law was State Senator Scott Wiener. I recently had a chance to ask Sen. Wiener some questions about that process.

His responses are given here in hopes of supplying useful information for legislators, lobbyists, and activists in other states who are interested in starting the reform process in their own states or other jurisdictions around the world. This interview has been edited for clarity.

Mark Satta: You sponsored and helped author California Senate Bill 239, which in 2017 was signed into law by Governor Jerry Brown. Senate Bill 239 modernized HIV criminalization in California. Can you give us a brief overview of what California HIV criminalization law looked like before the passage of this new law and what the major changes are that passage of the new law brought about?

Sen. Scott Wiener: In the late 1980s and early 1990s, California, like many states, adopted very harsh felonies to punish HIV-positive people who engaged in sexual activity with other people without disclosing their HIV status.

California has a catchall misdemeanor for willfully exposing someone to an infectious disease, which has been on the books for many years. But HIV, of all the many serious, deadly infectious diseases, was singled out for especially harsh felony treatment. The laws didn’t require you to transmit HIV, and in fact didn’t even require any meaningful risk of infection. So if you were virally suppressed, for example, or if the other person was on PrEP, or if you were engaging in sexual activity that really didn’t create much of a risk, under the old laws, it didn’t matter. They were very broad, draconian laws.

There was one law specific to sex workers where there didn’t even have to be physical contact. If [a sex worker] solicited someone without telling them they were HIV-positive, even if they never actually had sex, they were guilty of a felony. The new law converts sex worker felonies into misdemeanors.

It was really women, and in particular African American women and sex workers, who were targeted. And really, the laws did nothing to actually reduce HIV infections — all it did was stigmatize people with HIV and encourage people to hide their status.

So they’re just terrible, horrible laws and that’s why we tried to reform them.

Satta: In writing the bill, what were the major sources of information that you and Assembly member Gloria consulted to determine the ways in which California’s criminalization of HIV failed to accord with our scientific and medical understanding of HIV/AIDS?

Sen. Wiener: Part of [our information was] based on data on how you reduce and eliminate HIV infections, and the whole concept of getting to zero, which I’m very familiar with. You do it by encouraging people to get tested regularly so they know their status, and then if they do test positive, they quickly go on medication to become virally suppressed. And the people who are negative have access to all preventative tools, including PrEP.

So when you criminalize and single out people with HIV, it encourages people not to get tested. Because if you don’t know your status then you can’t be guilty of a crime. It encourages people to be very secretive about their status. And being secretive about your status undermines public health. That’s not how you get people tested or into treatment. You want people to feel comfortable being very open about their status. So that was the bedrock of the science we relied on.

If our goal is to prevent HIV infections, to keep people negative, and to keep positive people healthy, we must do that through a public health approach, not through a criminalization approach. Criminalization does not reduce HIV infections — in fact, it does the opposite.

We also had plenty of data on who was being targeted by these laws. It was targeting specific demographics. So even if one were to believe that criminalization somehow reduces infection—which it doesn’t— why would almost half of arrests and prosecutions be of women when they’re only 12 percent of the HIV-positive population? We also worked extensively with a broad coalition that included many public health organizations, physicians, and people who really understand the science.

Satta: In advocating for the bill in the California state senate, what messages and information resonated most strongly with your colleagues?

Sen Wiener: It depended. When you explained about how criminalization doesn’t reduce infections, for a certain segment of colleagues, that was enough. But what really resonated with others was that HIV was being treated differently than other infectious diseases, and more harshly. I had one colleague—a moderate Democrat from a pretty conservative district—and I was not sure if we would get her vote. When I talked to her about it and told her that HIV was being treated differently, as a felony, while other infectious diseases were a misdemeanor. She said to me, “Wait, you’re telling me that Ebola and TB are a misdemeanor, but HIV is a felony, and you want to move HIV into the same category as TB and Ebola?” And I said, “Yes.” And she said, “That’s all I need to know. Whenever I’m asked about it, that’s how I’ll answer.” And she voted for the bill.

 Satta: What advice would you give activists and legislators in other states or jurisdictions who are interested in advocating for legislative reform around HIV criminalization?

Sen. Wiener: First, build a very, very strong and broad coalition. The endorsement list for SB 239 was pages long. It included every reputable civil rights organization, public health organization, LGBT organization, immigrant organization — I mean, everything. You look at these incredibly well-respected organizations ranging from the ACLU, to Planned Parenthood, to respected healthcare advocacy organizations, and even before you delve into the facts, you say, “Look: if all these groups are supporting this, this is a bill I’m supporting.” This is especially true for Democrats.

Because of that broad coalition, lobbying for the bill was incredibly impactful. As an author, that made my life a lot easier. I talked to almost every member of the legislature about the bill one-on-one over the course of the year, but having the coalition aggressively lobbying made a big difference.

Then, really talk to legislators, colleague to colleague. Lots of people have this reaction where they think that if someone is trying to infect someone, they should be guilty of a felony. But you have to talk to them about the notion of the sociopath trying to infect people. Does that happen? Yes, but it’s extremely rare, and those are not the people being prosecuted under these laws.

You also have to indicate that this is a priority for LGBT civil rights organizations. That was very powerful, too. Equality California made the bill its number one priority of the year. For a number of Democrats, this is very compelling. Democrats, in California at least, want be on the right side of LGBT issues. And even though HIV goes beyond the LGBT community, obviously, there’s an enormous overlap.

Also, educate the reporters who are going to cover potential legislative reform. What we found was that there were a couple of publications in California—the San Francisco Chronicle and the Sacramento Bee in particular—that had reporters who really got it. For a number of other publications it was more hit and miss. And even when you had a good reporter, the editors would put clickbait headlines on. So other than some really good articles in the Bee and the Chronicle, we were never able to get accurate coverage. It would always be sensationalist. The headline would be something like, “Bill Proposes Making it Not a Felony to Intentionally Infect Someone with AIDS.” The Los Angeles Times was unfortunately notorious for clickbait headlines like that, which really flamed people up. We even got to the point where we did a call in and we invited the press just to talk about the basic facts of the bill and it didn’t work. So, before you even start you need to identify the reporters likely to report on this, sit down with them, and try to educate them about the facts.

Mark Satta is a 2018-2019 Petrie-Flom Center Student Fellow. 

Published on December 11, 2018 in Bill of Health

Zimbabwe: Calls to repeal law on HIV transmission and non-disclosure as it is not supported by scientific evidence

Repeal law on transmission of HIV

HARARE – There are calls to repeal a law that imposes criminal penalties on people who know they have HIV and engage in behaviours that might transmit the virus to others, without disclosing their status.

Deputy director HIV/Aids and STIs in the Health and Child Care ministry, Tsitsi Apollo, told delegates this week at a Symposium on HIV and Law organised by Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights and National Aids Council that Section 79 (1) of the Criminal Codification and Reform Act on deliberate transmission of HIV presents a barrier towards the country’s goal of reaching the 1st 90 by end of 2020.

She was referring to an ambitious goal set by UNAiDS, the UN agency dealing with the disease, to tackle the epidemic by 2020 by having 90 percent of people with HIV to know their status, 90 percent of diagnosed people to be on treatment, and 90 percent of those on treatment to have suppressed levels of the virus in their bodies.

“The law should be repealed as it violates the rights of recipients of care. The law should be grounded with scientific evidence to facilitate justice delivery”  Apollo said.

She said the law draws conclusions on deliberate HIV transmission from the fact that one is on ARVs – a direct contradiction of science. “It is difficult to ascertain direction of HIV transmission. Phylogenic analysis of virus samples from defendant and complainant is pre-requisite. It is difficult to exclude other possible sources of infection, even with evidence of a negative status at start of relationship…”

Published in Daily News on December 1, 2018

 

Uganda: New efforts underway in Uganda to challenge HIV legislation, especially its provisions on the disclosure of HIV status

Kampala, Uganda | IAN KATUSIIME | Rosemary Namubiru, a nurse, was in 2014 sentenced to three years in jail for criminal negligence over what seemed a potential infection of a baby with HIV the virus that causes AIDS. Her crime was that as an HIV positive nurse, she placed the life of a baby in danger when she pricked herself with an injection she was administering.

Australia: Community advocates call for decriminalisation of HIV and an implementation of U=U education campaign to remove stigma

Calls for review of Western Australia’s HIV Laws

Community advocates are calling for a review of Western Australian legislation relating to HIV, and criminalisation.

Grassroots organisation HIV Institute of WA have issued an open letter to Attorney General John Quigley, highlighting the relationship between HIV criminalisation and stigma faced by people living with HIV and the importance of the U=U (Undetectable = Untransmissible) campaign.

The letter, signed by spokesperson Neil Buckley, also notes the recent fake email sent to voters of Wentworth, suggesting candidate Dr Kerryn Phelps had withdrawn from the race after having been diagnosed with HIV. 

“The stigma in our own backyard needs addressing, implementing the U=U education campaign in the wider community would be a start to decriminalizing HIV and removing stigma which is a barrier to testing treatments.”

The group also raise concerns about the ambiguity in the phrasing of the current Western Australian Health Act. Currently the Act states that “a person who has a notifiable infection disease must take all reasonable precautions to ensure that others are not unknowingly placed at risk of contracting the disease.”

“What exactly constitutes reasonable practices is unclear and currently left up to the courts to decide,” the letter reads.

“Today, those with an undetectable viral load are believed to be un-infectious yet no court in Australia has ruled that this satisfies the reasonable precautions test. This ambiguity is concerning and can leave many unclear on whether they could face criminal charges.”

“While no criminal laws in Western Australia target HIV specifically, it can be prosecuted under assault-based offenses, which carry multi-year prison sentences.”

“While usually only applied to individuals that intentionally transmit HIV, it can be used against those that are only deemed negligent in their exposure.” the group highlight.

OIP Staff

Published in Out in Perth on November 12, 2018

US: New report by the Williams Institute shows clear disparities in enforcement of HIV criminalization laws in Florida

Study shows impact of HIV criminalization laws 

Los Angeles – Florida laws that criminalize people living with HIV directly affected 614 people from 1986 to 2017, according to a new report by the Williams Institute at the UCLA School of Law. Researchers found that women were disproportionately affected by HIV criminalization. White women were disproportionately arrested for HIV offenses in Florida, and black women were most likely to be convicted for HIV offenses related to sex work. HIV criminalization is a term used to describe laws that either criminalize otherwise legal conduct or increase the penalties for illegal conduct based upon a person’s HIV-positive status. More than two-thirds of US states and territories have enacted HIV criminal laws.

“Our study shows that certain communities, whether defined by gender, race/ethnicity, or sex-worker status, are bearing more of the weight of these laws,” said lead author Amira Hasenbush. “What’s more, these HIV criminal laws, which were originally intended to control the spread of HIV by prosecuting individuals who expose others, don’t require proof of transmission or even exposure in most cases. So the laws are not doing what they set out to do.”

Key findings: Individuals were arrested under HIV-related statutes in 47 out of the 67 counties in Florida. The highest prevalence of HIV in the state is found in Miami-Dade (24%) and Broward Counties (18%), but those counties represent only 4% and 3%, respectively, of the HIV-related arrests. On the other hand, Duval County is home to only 6% of the people living with HIV in Florida but 23% of all HIV-related arrests in the state. Over half (56%) of all individuals arrested under an HIV-related offense were women. More than four in ten people arrested under an HIV-related offense were black (43%) and white women were more likely to be arrested for an HIV-criminal offense than other groups. Black men were more likely to be convicted of an HIV-related offense than white men and white women. Convictions for HIV arrests were twice as likely when there was a concurrent sex work arrest than when the HIV offense occurred outside of the context of sex work. Read the report Williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/HIV-Criminalization-Florida-Oct-2018.pdf

Published in Baltimore Outloud on October 13, 2018

The fight for justice in HIV must join the fight to decriminalise abortion to ease the burdens on the sexual and reproductive lives of women and girls

Criminalizing the right to health: The shared struggle of the HIV and safe abortion movements

Edwin Cameron, Anand Grover

This month, India’s Supreme Court struck down Section 377 – a colonial-era law that banned same-sex activity and led to the systemic discrimination and persecution of LGBTQ Indians. This was a huge victory for India and – as two lawyers who have spent decades fighting for the rights of LGBTQ individuals – a very personal one.

Yet, while we celebrate this incredible achievement, we must remember that criminalization remains a potent threat for the health and lives of many people around the world. And those that often bear the largest burden are people living with HIV and AIDS and women and girls seeking abortion services.

While accessing legal and safe abortion services may seem very different from preventing or treating HIV, profound linkages bind the two struggles. Both HIV and AIDS and unsafe abortion endanger life and health, with a disproportionate impact on people living in developing countries. Both impose vast burdens on the sexual and reproductive lives of women and girls and imperil their equal citizenship. And both have the harsh, often cruel and blunt methods of criminal law imposed upon them.

Around the world, governments have used such criminal laws to police sexuality and reproduction, including for same-sex activity, HIV non-disclosure and exposure, and abortion services. These laws are often cloaked in the guise of keeping people safe or evoke morality as a justification.

But, as lawyers and advocates, we know that punitive provisions are not only ineffective, but have damaging and deadly consequences. They cause acute pain, suffering and even death. The fight to lift legal barriers to care is core to the fight for just healthcare for all.

We have both been part of the struggle for justice and rationality in the HIV epidemic and, more recently, in advocating safe abortion care. We know from personal experience how criminal laws, prosecutions and punishments grossly hamper human rights, particularly the right to health. Unjust laws also propagate stigma and discrimination, which, in turn, further impedes access to healthcare services, blocks dissemination of accurate and pertinent health information, and makes it difficult, if not impossible, to seek medical services, facilities and medicines. This severely impairs the dignity of women and girls.

We also recognize what science and the right to health has long told us: criminalization of health services almost invariably hits marginalized, vulnerable communities hardest and has a disastrous impact on health outcomes worldwide.

All of us, men and women, should have the freedom to decide if and when to reproduce and the right to access safe, effective, affordable and appropriate health care services, facilities and commodities. But, speaking as two males, we recognize the lamentable and grievous fact that this right is of particular urgency and concern to women and girls. And that its denial is harshest – indeed, too often fatal – for women and girls.

Every single year, more than 22,800 women and girls die due to complications from unsafe abortion – a stark reminder of the life and death consequences of criminalizing health care. In 68 countries, people living with HIV face laws that criminalize non-disclosure, exposure or transmission, which not only have a negative impact on prevention, but can discourage HIV testing and disclosure. The dream of “an AIDS-free world” will remain a dream if people are afraid to get tested or speak about their status for fear of arrest.

HIV is the leading cause of death among women of reproductive age in developing regions. The second biggest killer is maternal death, of which unsafe abortion accounts for a disquieting share. It is vital that women and girls remain at the center of these battles and their voices and experiences lead these movements. But we all lose if men shy away from the vital importance, to all, of life-saving care for women and girls.

We know that progress is possible. Beyond the recent victory to overturn Section 377, we’ve also seen the repeal of HIV criminalization laws in countries as diverse as Ghana, Tajikistan and Switzerland. Earlier this year, the Irish people overwhelmingly voted to overturn a constitutional ban on abortion.

As we learned in our decades of HIV/AIDS activism, the more people who fight for a just cause, the more change we can achieve. The fight for justice and plain sense in HIV must join the fight to decriminalize abortion. HIV and safe abortion activists around the world have already begun to make the connections – in thought and action – to come together and raise their voices against unjust laws, coercion and stigma, and demand accountability from governments.

Unison in understanding the issues and in tackling them brings fresh power to the fight for reproductive justice. Too many lives depend on it for any of us to be indifferent.

Justice Edwin Cameron is a judge on the Constitutional Court in South Africa and author of the prize-winning memoir “Witness to AIDS”, about his own experience of living with HIV.

Anand Grover is a designated Senior Advocate practicing in the Supreme Court of India, and the Director of the HIV/AIDS Unit of Lawyer’s Collective. He represented Naz Foundation, one of the petitioners in the Section 377 case.

 Published on Reuters on October 10, 2018
 
 
 
 

Zimbabwe: Punitive laws reverse the gains made in the fight against HIV in Zimbabwe and should be reconsidered

Outdated, punitive laws are encouraging HIV stigma in Zimbabwe

In 2001 Zimbabwe introduced the Sexual Offences Act, which criminalised wilful transmission of HIV. Three years later the law was updated to include those who suspected they could be HIV positive but didn’t inform their sexual partners.

The law allowed people to be criminally charged for deliberately infecting other people with HIV. It came about as a result of activism by women’s rights groups; they sought to empower women who were being recklessly exposed to HIV by rapists and, in some cases, by their partners.

At the time, very few advances had been made in the fight against HIV and AIDS; the epidemic was classed as an international security threat.

But that was 20 years ago. A great deal has changed since then. Most importantly, HIV has become a chronic and manageable condition rather than an automatic death sentence. This is not to say it doesn’t remain a very real public health issue: it’s estimated that about 1.55 million Zimbabweans in a country of 14.2 million people are living with HIV.

And yet Zimbabwe’s punitive law around the transmission of HIV remains on the statute books – and it’s enforced. Today, HIV transmission cases continue to be heard before Zimbabwe’s criminal courts. This is despite the fact that punitive HIV laws are widely acknowledged as undermining a country’s public health policies and strategies.

Laws like this exist in many places, including a number of US states, Russia, the UK and more than 30 sub-Saharan countries.

As I’ve shown in my own research, such laws fuel stigma and discrimnation. They also dissuade HIV testing and adherence to treatment. Unless the legal provision in question is revised, it could reverse the gains made in the fight against HIV and AIDS in Zimbabwe by making it seem as though people living with the disease are criminals.

 

Proving guilt

In 2016, two women were charged under the law and found guilty of deliberately transmitting HIV. In 2016, two people approached the country’s Constitutional Court to have their sentences overturned and the legal provision declared unconstitutional.

They argued that the wording of that part of the law was too ambiguous and uncertain. This, they said, meant it failed to provide protection to citizens as guaranteed by the Constitution. The ambiguity centred on the “real risk” test, which places an expectation on the accused to recognise the risk or possibility that they are HIV positive and so can transmit the virus to another person.

The applicants argued that this wording was so unreasonably broad that it created a danger of false incrimination. The court disagreed; the applicants lost their legal challenge and their convictions for deliberately infecting partners with HIV were upheld.

One of the problems with the law’s wording is that it’s extremely difficult to prove the causal link between the actions of the accused and the consequences faced by the victim.

And, since the law is worded in such a broad fashion, it leaves room for people to be falsely incriminated when relationships breakdown. This was the case with Samukelisiwe Mlilo – one of the applicants in the 2016 Constitutional Court case – whose husband accused her of infecting him with HIV after she reported him to the police for domestic abuse.

Mlilo was charged under a provision in the criminal code for deliberately transmitting HIV and convicted despite her argument that the state could not prove that she had actually infected him.

Next steps

Zimbabwe needs to reconsider this legislation. If it decides that criminalisation is a necessary tool, the wording of the law must be made more explicit and less open to individual interpretation. Only clear cases of criminality – where there is evidence of foresight, negligence and actual intent – should be tried.

It must also seek to complement public health policies rather than undermining them. The thrust of the law must be to protect all citizens alike rather than encouraging the marginalisation and exclusion of people living with HIV.

Published in The Zimbabwe Mail on August 20, 2018

 

Russia: Russian Human Rights Council favors criminal punishment over education for HIV denialism, thought to be affecting minors' HIV care

Russian Human Rights Council proposes criminal penalty for HIV denialism

MOSCOW, August 7 (RAPSI) – Russia’s Presidential Council for Human Rights has recommended the government to consider imposition of criminal punishment for propaganda of HIV denialism, a statement released on the advisory body’s website reads.

According to the Human Rights Council, HIV denialism is one of the main problems hindering enhancement of the disease control efficiency and primarily affecting minors.

Other problems in this field include defects in HIV laboratory tests conducted in unspecialized organizations, faults in statistical recording and absence of regulation of a work permit procedure for health care workers in the event of HI virus detection, the statement reads.

Human rights advocates recommended the Health Ministry to adopt corresponding legislation for the solution of these issues.

Published in RAPSI on August