Brazil: Litigation clinic and HIV organisation request leave to submit an amicus brief in discrimination case against the airforce

Armed Forces accused of discriminating against people with HIV

Automated translation via Deepl. For original article in Portuguese, please scroll down. 

FGV Law Group and NGO want to act in a lawsuit against the Air Force

A group from FGV Direito and another that campaigns on behalf of people living with HIV requested on Tuesday (30) from the TRF (Federal Regional Court) of the 2nd region, in Rio de Janeiro, their permission to file an amicus curiae (friend of the court) in a lawsuit against the Armed Forces for discrimination against people living with HIV.

Although Brazilian law condemns any form of prejudice and discrimination against HIV-positive people, the Armed Forces require an HIV test and, if the result is positive, prevents the person from entering the military.

However, there is ample scientific evidence showing that people with HIV may not develop the disease if they are under treatment. Many even have undetectable viral loads for years, which means that they do not transmit the virus.

The lawsuit that motivated the action of the two entities is in progress since 2018 and is brought by a business administrator from Rio de Janeiro who was barred from entry-level competition in the Air Force for being a person living with HIV. “Unfit for purpose”, says the medical report of the Air Force.

Seropositive for 11 years, he has always worked in administrative activities, has proof of full physical and mental health and is being treated with antiretroviral drugs, in addition to clinical follow-up.

Through an injunction, Silva joined the Air Force, but six months later, in the first internal competition, he had his promotion to second lieutenant annulled and was excluded from the Armed Forces. He appealed the decision in the TRF, and the appeal has not yet been judged.

It was almost an ambush. It is evident that the same thing would happen [a positive result for HIV],” says lawyer Eloisa Machado, professor of the Strategic Litigation of Human Rights Clinic at FGV Law in São Paulo, who filed the amicus curiae request together with GIV (Life Incentive Group).

The friend of the court is a process in Brazilian law that guarantees the participation of public agencies and civil society entities in judicial proceedings. The action is based on manifestations on controversial issues or those requiring technical knowledge for analysis. The FGV students studied the suit for six months, according to Machado.

For the lawyer, competition edicts and internal military norms attribute to people living with HIV a definitive incapacity, preventing not only entry into the Armed Forces but also eventual promotions of people who contracted the virus after being admitted.

“Our attempt [as amicus curiae] is perhaps to reverse this latest area of formal discrimination against people living with HIV,” Machado says.

According to her, a revision of the statute in the Armed Forces is necessary, since a positive diagnosis of the HIV virus solely does not mean inability to exercise any functions.

The mathematics professor from USP Jorge Beloqui, from GIV, reinforces that, without this updating of the rules, more cases of discrimination, without any scientific basis, will continue to occur.

For him, the consequences of discrimination at work on a person living with HIV go beyond an isolated case and end up affecting all HIV-positive people.

Although criticised, this attitude from the Air Force is not illegal. In previous positions on the subject, the technical advisory of the Ministry of Defense reported that, by law, the Armed Forces have “autonomy to decide not to accept candidates who present some kind of debilitation that prevents them from exercising their positions”.

Private companies and other public institutions, on the other hand, are prohibited from asking for an HIV test for job applicants. Law No. 11,199/2002 considers that it is discrimination towards people with HIV and people with AIDS to require an HIV test in competition applications or selection to enter public and private service.

The Ministry of Defence’s press office had not replied regarding the publication of this text.


Forças Armadas são acusadas de discriminar pessoas com HIV

Grupo da FGV Direito e ONG querem atuar em processo contra a Aeronáutica

Um grupo da FGV Direito e outro que milita a favor das pessoas vivendo com HIV-Aids solicitaram nesta terça (30) ao TRF (Tribunal Regional Federal) da 2ª região, do Rio de Janeiro, sua permissão como amicus curiae (amigo da corte) em ação movida contra as Forças Armadas por discriminação de pessoas vivendo com HIV.

Embora a legislação brasileira condene qualquer forma de preconceito e discriminação aos portadores de HIV, as Forças Armadas exigem o exame que detecta o vírus e, diante de um resultado positivo, impede que a pessoa ingresse na carreira militar.

Ocorre que há fartas evidências científicas demonstrando que as pessoas com HIV podem não desenvolver a doença se estiverem sob tratamento. Muitas, inclusive, estão com cargas virais indetectáveis há anos, o que significa que também não transmitem o vírus.

O processo que motivou a atuação das duas entidades tramita desde 2018 e é movido por um administrador de empresas do Rio de Janeiro que foi barrado em concurso de ingresso na Aeronáutica por ser pessoa vivendo com HIV. “Incapaz para o fim que se destina”, diz o laudo médico da Aeronáutica.

Soropositivo há 11 anos, ele sempre trabalhou em atividades administrativas, tem comprovação de plena saúde física e mental e está em tratamento com antirretrovirais, além de acompanhamento clínico.

Por meio de uma liminar, Silva chegou a ingressar na Aeronáutica, mas, seis meses depois, no primeiro concurso interno, ele teve sua promoção para segundo tenente anulada e foi excluído das Forças Armadas. Ele recorreu da decisão no TRF, e o recurso ainda não foi julgado.

Foi quase uma emboscada. É evidente que ia dar a mesma coisa [resultado positivo para o HIV]”, diz a advogada Eloísa Machado, professora da Clínica de Litigância Estratégica de Direitos Humanos da FGV Direito de São Paulo, que ingressou com o pedido de amicus curiae junto com o GIV (Grupo de Incentivo à Vida).

O amigo da corte é uma figura do direito brasileiro que garante a participação de órgãos públicos e entidades da sociedade civil em processos judiciais. A atuação se dá com base em manifestações sobre assuntos polêmicos ou que necessitem de conhecimento técnico para análise. Os alunos da FGV estudaram a ação durante seis meses, segundo Machado.

Para a advogada, os editais de concurso e as normas internas militares imputam às pessoas vivendo com HIV uma incapacidade definitiva, impedindo não só o ingresso nas Forças Armadas como eventuais promoções de pessoas que contraíram o vírus depois de serem admitidas.

“Nossa tentativa [como amicus curiae] é talvez reverter esse último espaço de discriminação formal contra pessoas convivendo com HIV”, afirma Machado.

Segundo ela, é necessária uma revisão no estatuto nas Forças Armadas, já que apenas o diagnóstico positivo do vírus HIV não significa incapacidade para exercício de quaisquer funções.

O professor de matemática da USP Jorge Beloqui, do GIV, reforça que, sem essa atualização das normas, mais casos de discriminação, sem nenhum embasamento científico, vão continuar ocorrendo.

Para ele, as consequências da discriminação no trabalho sobre uma pessoa vivendo com HIV vão além de um caso isolado e acabam atingindo todos os soropositivos.

Embora criticada, essa atitude da Aeronáutica não é proibida. Em posicionamentos anteriores sobre o assunto, a assessoria técnica do Ministério da Defesa informou que, por lei, as Forças Armadas têm “autonomia para decidir não aceitar candidatos que apresentarem algum tipo de debilitação que os impeça de exercer seus cargos”.

Já as empresas privadas e outras instituições públicas estão proibidas de pedir o exame de HIV aos aspirantes a vagas de trabalho. A lei nº 11.199/2002 considera discriminação aos portadores do HIV e das pessoas com Aids a exigência de exames de detecção do vírus em inscrições de concurso ou seleção para ingressar no serviço público e privado.

Procurada, a assessoria de imprensa do Ministério da Defesa não se manifestou até a publicação deste texto.

 

Austria: Austria’s AIDS Support organisations call for the destigmatisation of HIV positive people in criminal law

HIV-positive people are discriminated against in court

Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version) – For original article in German, please scroll down

AIDShilfen: HIV-positive people are discriminated against in court
Criminal law should follow scientific findings. HIV infections should no longer be prosecuted.

Vienna – Austria’s AIDS support organisations are protesting against discrimination in court and demand “the destigmatisation of HIV-positive people in criminal law”. People with HIV who regularly take their therapy and whose viral load is below the detectability limit “do not pose a threat”, it was stressed. “It is high time that criminal law follows the scientific findings,” warned Andrea Brunner, Executive Director of Aidshilfe Wien.

In the past, HIV-positive people have been held criminally responsible despite effective therapy and even though no transmission had taken place. The potential risk of infection was assumed, according to the AIDS support organisations. In 2020, the Higher Regional Court (OLG) of Graz overturned such a first-instance decision on the grounds that successful HIV therapy precluded criminal liability.

Adequate therapy as prevention
Sections 178 and 179 of the Criminal Code (Strafgesetzbuch, StGB) “or the previous case law on the subject”, however, continue to expose people with HIV to discrimination and stigmatisation. Since it has been proven that regular and effective therapy prevents the HIV virus from being passed on, those affected would not be committing a “dangerous act” during sexual intercourse, argues Aidshilfe. Since there is no risk of transmission, the facts of section 178 (“risk of spreading”) are not fulfilled. However, the fear of criminal consequences could contribute to a decrease in the willingness to test among those affected.

The Austrian Aids Support Services demand that an HIV infection should no longer be covered by the punishability of section 178f. As long as this remains the case, “the current state of medical research must be taken into account in the decision by a court. This means that both safe sex and the consistent pursuit of drug therapy must be grounds for exclusion from a trial.”

Broad support from parties
The demands meet with broad support among the parties represented in the National Council. The health spokespersons of the SPÖ, FPÖ do so unreservedly. NEOS (Neues Österreich) health spokesperson Fiona Fiedler is “basically in favour of reducing discrimination and promoting education”, but courts already take the state of science into account – “this demand is therefore obsolete”.

The press office of the ÖVP parliamentary club refers to the Ministry of Justice. There, the demands of the Aids organisations are currently being examined, it says on request. According to the press office of his club, the Green health spokesman Ralph Schallmeiner has already made an appointment with Andrea Brunner, managing director of Aids Hilfe Wien, to discuss possible improvements. (APA, red, 25.10.2021)


HIV-Positive werden vor Gericht diskriminiert
Das Strafrecht solle wissenschaftlichen Erkenntnissen folgen. HIV-Infektionen sollen nicht mehr strafrechtlich verfolgt werden.

Wien – Die Aidshilfen Österreichs protestieren gegen Diskriminierung vor Gericht und fordern “die Entstigmatisierung von HIV-Positiven im Strafrecht”. Menschen mit HIV, die regelmäßig ihre Therapie einnehmen und deren Virenlast unter der Nachweisbarkeitsgrenze liegt, “stellen keine Gefährdung dar”, wurde betont. “Es ist höchst an der Zeit, dass das Strafrecht den wissenschaftlichen Erkenntnissen folgt”, mahnte Andrea Brunner, Geschäftsführerin der Aidshilfe Wien.

In der Vergangenheit seien HIV-positive Menschen trotz wirksamer Therapie und obwohl gar keine Übertragung stattgefunden habe, strafrechtlich zur Verantwortung gezogen worden. Es sei das Gefährdungspotenzial für eine Ansteckung unterstellt worden, so die Aidshilfen. 2020 hob das Oberlandesgericht (OLG) Graz eine solche erstinstanzliche Entscheidung mit der Begründung auf, dass eine erfolgreiche HIV-Therapie eine Strafbarkeit ausschließe.

Adäquate Therapie als Prävention
Die Paragrafen 178 und 179 im Strafgesetzbuch (StGB) “beziehungsweise die bisherige Rechtsprechung dazu” setze Menschen mit HIV aber weiterhin Diskriminierung und Stigmatisierung aus. Da erwiesen ist, dass eine regelmäßige und wirksame Therapie eine Weitergabe des HI-Virus unterbindet, würden Betroffene beim Geschlechtsverkehr jedoch keine “gefährdende Handlung” setzen, argumentiert die Aidshilfe. Da kein Risiko für eine Übertragung besteht, sei der Tatbestand des Paragrafen 178 (“Gefahr der Verbreitung”) nicht erfüllt. Die Angst vor strafrechtlichen Konsequenzen könne jedoch dazu beitragen, dass die Testbereitschaft bei Betroffenen sinkt.

Die Aidshilfen Österreichs fordern, dass eine HIV-Infektion nicht mehr von der Strafbarkeit von Paragraf 178f erfasst sein soll. Solange dies der Fall bleibt, “muss bei der Entscheidung durch ein Gericht der aktuelle Stand der medizinischen Forschung beachtet werden. Das bedeutet, dass sowohl Safer Sex als auch das konsequente Verfolgen einer medikamentösen Therapie als Ausschlussgrund für ein Verfahren gelten müssen.”

Breite Unterstützung von Parteien
Bei den im Nationalrat vertretenen Parteien stoßen die Forderungen großteils auf Unterstützung. Die Gesundheitssprecher von SPÖ, FPÖ tun dies vorbehaltlos. Neos-Gesundheitssprecherin Fiona Fiedler ist “grundsätzlich dafür, Diskriminierung abzubauen und Aufklärung voranzutreiben”, Gerichte würden den Stand der Wissenschaft aber schon jetzt berücksichtigen – “diese Forderung ist daher obsolet.”

Die Pressestelle des ÖVP-Parlamentsklubs verweist auf das Justizministerium. Dort werden die Forderungen der Aidshilfen aktuell geprüft, heißt es auf Nachfrage. Der grüne Gesundheitssprecher Ralph Schallmeiner hat, laut Pressestelle seines Klubs, bereits einen Termin mit Andrea Brunner, Geschäftsführerin der Aids Hilfe Wien, vereinbart, um etwaige Verbesserungen zu diskutieren. (APA, red, 25.10.2021)

 

Brazil: Instead of criminalising people living with HIV, strengthening health services would promote prevention and care

Living with HIV is not a crime. People living with the AIDS virus should have peace of mind like everyone else.

Google translation – For the original article in Portuguese, please scroll down.

By Esper Kallás

A few years ago, I was consulted about the case of a person who was allegedly trying to transmit HIV sexually. This happened because it was discovered that he was living with the virus after medical pre­scrip­tions were found in his drawer, which contained the medications for the treatment cocktail. The del­egate responsible for investigating the complaint, until then, tended to accept the opening of the process.

Criminalizing someone for being infected with HIV is still a serious problem in several countries around the world, including Brazil. At least 92 countries have specific or sufficiently vague laws that allow a person living with the virus to be held liable for having sex. The situation becomes even more serious as the ma­jority of people living with HIV belong to more socially vulnerable population groups.

In consensual sex, does a person living with HIV necessarily need to disclose their HIV status to their part­ner? The answer is “no”. In support of this position, here are some considerations.

Regarding the prevention of sexually transmitted infections, having a consensual sexual relationship brings responsibilities to everyone who takes part in it.

Treatment with the antiretroviral cocktail is highly effective in controlling the spread of HIV, allowing peo­ple to keep HIV undetectable in their blood. As a result, they stop transmitting HIV sexually. In several, extensive and repeated studies, the results are striking: persons who are part of couples with a sexual partner who lives with HIV and has an undetectable virus did not become infected, even with sexual rela­tions without protection of a male or female condom. As a result, a person who is living with HIV and is unde­tectable is a safer sexual partner in unprotected sex than someone who does not know if they have the virus. Hence the concept of “undetectable = untransmissible”.

The recommendation is shared by the Joint United Nations Program on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS), which also suggests that countries respect the confidentiality of people living with the virus, helping to combat prej­u­dice and favoring access to health services. Continuing to criminalize people just because they are living with HIV takes the opposite path.

Comparing HIV to other agents of sexually transmitted infections, it is noted that these can also lead to potentially serious consequences. For example, syphilis, in its tertiary form, can compromise organs and systems, including neurological functions. Gonorrhea can lead to infertility. HPV can lead to genital cancer, especially in women. In these circumstances, there is not the same movement of attribution of guilt for having occurred by sexual transmission.

After a few days, the case presented at the beginning of the text was clarified by the delegate: the accused was undergoing treatment regularly and had an undetectable viral load, while the accuser, in bad faith, sought an opportunity for extortion.

Instead of criminalizing people living with HIV, it is necessary to strengthen health services to promote the prevention of sexually transmitted infections, facilitate access to tests for sexually transmitted agents and ensure treatment with antiretroviral cocktail drugs for those living with HIV. It is worth discussing here a campaign that better clarifies the concept “undetectable = non-transmitter” to society.

The time has passed already to resolve this public health and, also, human rights problem.


Viver com HIV não é crime. Pessoas que vivem com vírus da Aids devem ter tranquilidade como todos.

Por Esper Kallás

Há alguns anos, fui consultado sobre um caso de uma pessoa que, supostamente, tentava transmitir se­xual­mente o HIV. Isso aconteceu pois descobriu-se que vivia com o vírus, depois de terem sido encontra­das receitas médicas em sua gaveta, nas quais constavam os remédios do coquetel de tratamento. O de­legado responsável por investigar a denúncia, até então, tendia a aceitar a abertura do processo.

Criminalizar alguém por estar infectado pelo HIV ainda é um grave problema em vários países do mundo, incluindo o Brasil. Ao menos 92 países têm leis específicas ou suficientemente vagas que permitem res­ponsabilizar judicialmente uma pessoa que vive com o vírus por manter relações sexuais. A situação torna-se ainda mais grave pois a maioria das pessoas vivendo com HIV pertence a grupos populacionais social­mente mais vulneráveis.

Em relações sexuais consensuais, uma pessoa que vive com HIV precisa, obrigatoriamente, revelar seu status sorológico para o parceiro? A resposta é “não”. Sustentando esta posição, seguem algumas ponde­ra­ções.

Em relação à prevenção de infecções sexualmente transmissíveis, ter uma relação sexual consensual traz responsabilidades para todos que dela tomam parte.

O tratamento com o coquetel de antirretrovirais é altamente eficaz no controle da multiplicação do HIV, permitindo que as pessoas consigam manter o HIV indetectável no sangue. Como consequência, deixam de transmitir o HIV por via sexual. Em diversos, extensos e repetidos estudos, os resultados são contun­dentes: pessoas que compõem casais cujo parceiro sexual vive com HIV e tem vírus indetectável não se infectaram, mesmo com relações sexuais sem proteção por camisinha masculina ou feminina. Como re­sultado, uma pessoa que vive com o HIV e está indetectável é um parceiro sexual mais seguro em uma relação sexual desprotegida do que alguém que não sabe se tem o vírus. Daí o conceito de “indetectável = não transmissor”.

A recomendação é partilhada pelo Programa Conjunto das Nações Unidas para HIV/Aids (UNAIDS), que também sugere aos países respeito à confidencialidade das pessoas que vivem com o vírus, auxiliando no combate ao preconceito e favorecendo o acesso aos serviços de saúde. Continuar criminalizando pessoas somente porque vivem com o HIV trilha o caminho inverso.

Comparando HIV aos demais agentes de infecções sexualmente transmissíveis, nota-se que estes também podem levar a consequências potencialmente graves. Por exemplo, a sífilis, na forma terciária, pode com­prometer órgãos e sistemas, inclusive as funções neurológicas. A gonorréia pode levar à infertilidade. O HPV pode levar a câncer genital, especialmente em mulheres. Não há, nestas circunstâncias, o mesmo movimento de imputação de culpa por ter ocorrido transmissão por sexo.

Passados alguns dias, o caso apresentado no começo do texto foi esclarecido pelo delegado: o acusado fazia seu tratamento regularmente e tinha carga viral indetectável, enquanto quem acusou, por má fé, buscava uma oportunidade de extorsão.

Ao contrário de criminalizar as pessoas que vivem com HIV, é preciso fortalecer os serviços de saúde para promoção da prevenção de infecções sexualmente transmissíveis, facilitar acesso a testes para agentes trans­missíveis por via sexual e assegurar tratamento com remédios do coquetel antirretroviral aos que vivem com o HIV. Cabe, aqui, discutir uma campanha que esclareça melhor à sociedade o conceito “inde­tectável = não transmissor”.

Já passou a hora de resolver esse problema de saúde pública e, também, de direitos humanos.

Singapore: Do HIV Non-Disclosure Laws in Singapore Still Make Sense Today?

by Daniel Ho, Rayner Tan and Daryl Yang

It has been almost forty years since the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) was first discovered in 1983. HIV is the virus that leads to acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS), which is also commonly known as late-stage HIV.

While HIV was viewed as a death sentence at the beginning of the pandemic decades ago, the picture today is a far cry from that. Thanks to medical advances, HIV is now understood and treated as a chronic disease. Individuals living with HIV who receive treatment enjoy the same life expectancies compared to people without HIV.

Furthermore, individuals who have achieved viral suppression as a result of medication cannot transmit HIV sexually. Three recent, large observational cohort studies produced zero cases of transmission in spite of approximately 125,000 unprotected sex acts between couples of differing HIV status, without the use of any HIV prevention methods like condoms or HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis.

Viral suppression is often also known as achieving an ‘undetectable’ viral load, and these two terms are used interchangeably. Viral loads are ‘undetectable’ because the equipment used to ‘count’ such viral loads does not detect the virus’s presence below specific thresholds.

The origins of HIV non-disclosure laws in Singapore

Like the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, the early years of HIV were characterised by fear and panic due to a lack of information on how the virus would spread between individuals.

As a result, heavy-handed and sweeping legal reforms were undertaken to keep Singaporeans safe from the virus.

In 1992, the Infectious Diseases Act was amended to ban people living with HIV from engaging in sexual activity unless they have informed their sexual partner of the risk of contracting HIV/AIDS from them and that sexual partner has voluntarily agreed to accept that risk.

In 1998, non-Singaporeans living with HIV were prohibited from entering Singapore, regardless of their immigration status.

However, while the ban on foreigners with HIV was partially lifted in 2015 to allow short-term visitors, laws criminalizing HIV non-disclosure have not only remained in the books but were expanded in scope and severity.

In 2008, Parliament amended the law such that anyone who has “reason to believe” that he has or “has been exposed to a significant risk” of contracting HIV/AIDS must also disclose to his sexual partners the risk of contracting HIV/AIDS from him.

Alternatively, suppose he chooses not to disclose such risk. In that case, he must have either tested negative for HIV or take reasonable precautions to ensure that he does not expose his sexual partner to the risk of contracting HIV.

The punishment for failing to do so was also increased five-fold with a fine of up to S$50,000 or 10 years’ imprisonment.

HIV non-disclosure laws are counterproductive to public health

While these laws were passed to protect you from HIV, scientists working in the field of HIV would confidently tell you that they are more likely to exacerbate the spread of HIV today.

A global expert panel of more than 20 HIV scientists and experts was convened in 2018 to publish a consensus statement on the science of HIV in the context of criminal law and called for “legal and judicial systems to pay close attention to the significant advances in HIV science that have occurred over the last three decades to ensure current scientific knowledge informs application of the law in cases related to HIV”.

This is because such laws are ineffective and create a false sense of security and perpetuate stigma and discrimination, which can deter many from getting tested or seeking treatment for HIV.

When HIV non-disclosure was criminalised in 1992, then Minister for Health Yeo Cheow Tong said that this was meant to address the “irresponsible and dangerous behaviour” of HIV-positive individuals.

Subsequently, when expanding the offence to those at significant risk of contracting HIV, then Minister for Health Khaw Boon Wan explained that these laws are necessary because “for every known HIV case, there could be another one to two cases who are infected but remain undiagnosed until the symptoms appear”.

While Khaw is correct that a key problem with ending the HIV epidemic in Singapore is late diagnosis, these laws do not encourage people to get tested regularly. Instead, they create a climate of fear, stigma and shame around HIV.

The existence of these laws runs contrary to the Ministry of Health’s own strategy of “destigmatising HIV infection and getting more people at-risk to come forward to get tested”.

Living with HIV non-disclosure laws

Yes I know who I got it from. After that I actually got tested and then I Informed some of my friends, who then agreed to go to Bangkok with me, because I didn’t want to get registered in Singapore. But after a year or so I decided to come back to Singapore to seek treatment because it was… Very troublesome for me to go back and forth.” 

Apart from disincentivising linkage to the healthcare system, as explained by a participant above from a past study on living with HIV, such laws possibly maintain stigma and discrimination of already vulnerable communities of people living with HIV.

Because of this legal obligation to disclose the risk of contracting HIV to sexual partners, people living with HIV live in fear of having their HIV-positive statuses “outed” to others who may know them in various capacities, be it their employers, friends, family, or other loved ones.

The pain of rejection is very real. The fear of alienation from others may also implicate not just people living with HIV but also those who might avoid going for sexual health testing for fear of finding out that they may be HIV-positive.

This is also exacerbated by the fact that there is no legal protection for people living with HIV from discrimination, nor is there any law prohibiting their sexual partners from disclosing their HIV status to third parties.

Beyond its direct impact on the fear of having their statuses disclosed, what we know about stigma, and in particular concealed stigma (not visible or immediately obvious, such as hidden disabilities, being a sexual minority or having a mental illness) is that it places considerable psychological stress on the individual.

Living with concealed stigma

Given the ever-looming threat of discovery and possible alienation, people living with HIV may report a sense of shame and demoralisation, particularly in instances where the threat of discovery is higher or more salient, such as during job interviews or health screenings.

For example, during Chinese New Year when we are having a steamboat. You know right, after my first round of helpings, I will not use the same utensils. Or even, even during meals, I  wouldn’t use… unless they are scraps… or there are tongs or whatever. If not, then I usually will not help myself to a second round of food.”

As shared by another participant above, people living with concealed stigma may also find themselves being on a near-constant vigilance toward their interactions with others and even those who already know about their status, as a result of shame and self-stigma.

Other implications may also involve the preoccupation of having to ‘keep a secret’ due to the risks of disclosure, adding to the cognitive burden that these individuals face in their daily interactions with others.

Coupled with feelings of shame and demoralisation, the fear that people they know may shun them because of their HIV status may affect their overall behaviour. It can also lead to increased social isolation, impaired relational functioning, and excessive impression management.

These challenges stemming from stigma and discrimination may further heighten the sense of despair and exclusion that people living with HIV experience as vulnerable members of society.

What will happen without HIV non-disclosure laws?

We now know that removing HIV non-disclosure laws will help us reduce stigma and get more people to access the care they need. But what happens without such laws? Are we at greater risk of contracting HIV from someone who is living with HIV?

No, we are not, and here are three reasons why.

First, there is no evidence that such laws actually reduce HIV transmission (in fact, the opposite is more likely to be true). Furthermore, the burden of sexual health should not fall only on one party in sexual partnerships.

The removal of this law also ensures that we do not remain complacent around one’s risk of acquiring sexually transmitted infections in general and will create opportunities for more equitable, comprehensive sexual health education.

Second, it is a fact that a majority of people in Singapore who are living with HIV cannot transmit HIV sexually. The Ministry of Health has estimated that in 2018, 80% of individuals living with HIV in Singapore knew about their own status, of whom 91% had initiated treatment, and 91% of those who initiated treatment had achieved viral suppression or an undetectable viral load.

This means that based on the science of viral suppression, an estimated 66% of all people living with HIV in Singapore cannot transmit HIV through sex. While the risk will always remain at the individual level, removing such laws will get more people tested for HIV, lead to an increase in the proportion of people who start treatment, get virally suppressed, and therefore cannot transmit HIV through sex at a population level.

Third, even if someone had intentionally or recklessly put you at risk of HIV, HIV non-disclosure laws are unnecessary because existing criminal legislation already addresses this.

For example, Section 376H of the Penal Code criminalizes deception or false representation in the context of being a carrier of a sexually transmitted disease, which includes HIV. Still, it does not single out HIV as uniquely or more dangerous than other diseases.

Law enforcement may also arguably prosecute the intentional transmission of HIV as a form of grievous hurt by “means of any substance which it is harmful to the human body to… receive into the blood” under Section 326 of the Penal Code.

Ending AIDS and onward transmission of HIV by 2030

The Joint Declaration of the United Nations on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) adopts the ‘90-90-90’ goal, also known as the ‘HIV treatment cascade’, to track countries’ progress in the fight against HIV and AIDS.

The first 90 refers to having 90% of people living with HIV know their status, the second 90 refers to having 90% of those who know their status initiating medication, and the third 90 refers to having 90% of those on medication who have achieved viral suppression.

Earlier, we shared that Singapore’s cascade in 2018 was estimated to be 80-91-91.

Repealing laws that criminalize HIV non-disclosure will help end the present climate of fear and stigma around HIV and encourage more people to get tested for HIV and start treatment. The impact on HIV transmission would be immense.

For example, improving our estimates from 80-91-91 to 90-91-91 would mean 74.5% of people living with HIV not being able to transmit HIV sexually, up from 66%, as shared earlier. The reduced number of HIV cases would be beneficial for society without any adverse knock-on effects.

The impact on the quality of life among people living with HIV would also be significant. Reducing stigma associated with HIV will empower individuals to lead full, productive lives. HIV can finally be treated socially—as it has clinically—like any other chronic disease.

Community groups in Singapore, alongside UNAIDS, have called for the end of AIDS and onward transmission of HIV by the year 2030. We are getting close to that goal, but such laws remain a hurdle. Guided by medical advancements and public health research, it is time to repeal HIV non-disclosure laws so that they may no longer hinder Singapore’s efforts to end the HIV epidemic.

[Feature] It Takes More Than A Village to End HIV Criminalisation

The proverb says, “It takes a village to raise a child”. But what if a mother in the village is living with HIV, and some of the villagers stigmatise her? What if that stigma creates a situation where the mother living with HIV is unjustly criminalised because of her HIV status? Then it takes more than a village to get justice for that woman. It takes a global movement to end HIV criminalisation to sensitise and train lawyers and expert witnesses.  It takes national communities of women living with HIV to support that woman following her release, and to educate the community in which she lives about HIV.

Introduction

In 2016, a Malawi court convicted a woman living with HIV of “negligently and recklessly doing an act likely to spread the infection of any disease which is dangerous to life” under section 192 of the Malawi Penal Code. She had attended a village meeting with her baby which she breastfed as usual before passing the child to her grandmother. Another woman then asked her to hold her baby. It was alleged that this child began breastfeeding briefly before the woman realised what was happening. The child’s mother then reported the incident to the police. The woman was arrested and without legal advice or representation, pleaded guilty, was convicted, and sentenced to nine months’ imprisonment with hard labour.

The circumstances of the case are all the more shocking because women living with HIV are encouraged to breastfeed in Malawi (and in other countries with high HIV prevalence and settings in which diarrhoea, pneumonia and undernutrition are common causes of infant and child deaths) and because HIV-related prosecutions involving breastfeeding are exceedingly rare. Unfortunately, we have seen an increase in the number of such cases since 2016. HJN is working to address this in a number of ways because we believe there should never be prosecutions of women living with HIV for breastfeeding.

In addition, the accused woman was taking antiretroviral therapy. The chances of HIV transmission through even long-term breastfeeding are very low (which is why WHO guidelines recommend it when access to infant formula and clean water are limited) and the chances of transmission during the brief period the baby allegedly fed were infinitesimally small. In fact, the accused woman’s own child, who was routinely breastfed, has not acquired HIV, calling into question any suggestion that she intended to cause harm to the other woman’s child. Perversely, for a system that unjustly condemned her for risking harm to the other woman’s child, her own baby was imprisoned with her, without any arrangements for appropriate feeding and care, negating any notion that the legal system’s purpose was to protect children.

Following media reports of her initial conviction, numerous individuals and organisations – including HJN and our HIV JUSTICE WORLDWIDE partners, ARASA and SALC – became involved in the case, ultimately changing the outcome for the woman and her family, and laying the groundwork for further anti-HIV stigma advocacy and education in the region. Her story demonstrates the vital role that education, training, strong networks, and community play in the pursuit of HIV justice.

Living with HIV-related stigma

When interviewed at her home in 2019, the woman referred to as “EL” talked about her life:[1]

[1] The initials EL are used instead of her full name following a court order of anonymity to protect her privacy. The interview took place in 2019, during the village visit described later in this article.

“As kids, there were the two of us — me and my brother. My parents faced challenges raising us. Finding the basic necessities like soap and food was a tall order, let alone talking about going to school. It was difficult to get learning materials as well as proper clothes to wear at school. I worked hard in class but couldn’t get past Standard 5 at primary school. Eventually I dropped out, and my brother did the same, … My daily life was taken up doing house chores just like any other girl in the village, as well as helping my parents with farming. At 16, I got married.”

EL further described how she was diagnosed HIV-positive in 2015 after a de facto compulsory HIV test at an antenatal visit. She already had two children and was pregnant with her third. She had heard about HIV but did not know much about it. EL said that the healthcare workers provided a lot of assistance, giving her accurate information about HIV, including the importance of adhering to her antiretroviral treatment (ARVs).

EL and two of her children. Photo: Amos Gumulira/UNDP Malawi

EL said that she generally enjoyed life in her village, although at times she was subject to stigma and discrimination:

“When I went to fetch water at the community borehole, people would laugh at me, and whenever I wanted to participate in community work, you would find pockets of community members talking ill about me. Some people used to insult me, calling me names. But I persevered because my relatives, including the Village Headman himself, gave me support and always stood by my side.”

Members of EL’s family also faced discrimination. “Due to lack of information, a lot of people thought HIV was hereditary and because I was diagnosed HIV-positive, this meant that all my family members had HIV, and they were discriminated against,” EL said.

EL wonders if more could have been done to help her fight stigma. In particular, EL gained a lot of knowledge about HIV from the counselling she got when diagnosed, but perhaps she could have been better equipped with information to share with people in her community:

“A lot of people don’t know that if you adhere to ARVs, you reduce the risk of transmitting HIV to others. This information needs to be passed on to many people. There are also other issues to do with ARVs. A lot of people don’t have adequate information on the effects of ARVs and at the end of the day, they start pointing fingers at each other, giving people room to start speculating about issues to do with witchcraft.”

EL’s prosecution had repercussions for her whole village. One woman from the community explained:

“I was there and very close to where EL was sitting. Yes, she was carrying another woman’s child. This other woman had given the child to EL for safe keeping while she went to stand in a queue, but honestly speaking, I didn’t see EL breastfeed the child. I just heard some people who were sitting a distance from where we were sitting, as they started pointing accusing fingers at her.”

She said that things moved so fast that before they could think of anything to stop what she called “the rumour.” It had gotten out of hand and people started saying that EL had intentionally breastfed the child to transmit HIV.

After receiving a summons, EL voluntarily turned herself in at the police station. She was accompanied by the Village Headman (her grandfather) who wanted first-hand information about what crime she was alleged to have committed. That same day, police transferred EL to a larger town, where she was remanded for three days. At the age of 29, this was the first time that EL had ever left her village.

Days later, she appeared in court and the charge sheet was read out. EL recounted that she had not understood what was happening and could not make arguments because she had no legal representation. EL agreed with the summary of events as they were described, so she was found guilty and was imprisoned together with her youngest child.

She described life in prison as “hell”:

“After a week, my brother showed up to give me my ARVs. All this talk about a woman with HIV breastfeeding. I breastfed but I also found it tough to feed my baby while in prison because there was no provision of special food for babies. We were eating nandolo (pigeon peas) almost every day with Msima ya Mgaiwa (maize meal). And there was only one toilet for a cell of more than 50 people.”

After some time, relatives and other members of her community started visiting, giving her money she could use to buy soap and food for her baby. “When we heard from our Village Headman that she had been arrested, we were so devastated”, a woman from EL’s village explained. “We raised funds for some members to go and give her support only to learn that she had been transferred to one town, then another, but some of us did manage on several occasions to visit her and offer our support when she was in prison.”

Then, out of the blue, EL received a message that some people had come looking for her. She went to meet them: a lawyer, Wesley Mwafulirwa, and his paralegal. They explained why they were there and asked if she would like them to appeal on her behalf. She accepted enthusiastically. “I was excited but at the same time I was confused because I could not believe that I could be so lucky to have these people come to help me.”

Fighting the charges

Solicitor Wesley Mwafulirwa had volunteered to attend training to address legal barriers to prison health and human rights presented by the Southern African Litigation Centre (SALC). He travelled from Malawi to South Africa to attend the training which addressed useful regional and international mechanisms, and presented insights about legal practice and strategic litigation to support prison health and human rights, particularly for those facing heightened vulnerability to HIV and TB.

Wesley Mwafulirwa Photo: Amos Gumulira/UNDP Malawi

At the training, two lawyers spoke about their pro bono work. Wesley remembers one of them, Allan Maleche (Executive Director of KELIN), saying that each participant should take at least one case when they go back to their country. It was a turning point in Wesley’s career.

He had not been home long when he saw an article in the newspaper about an HIV-positive person convicted for trying to spread HIV. That person was EL.

Wesley, who lives in a small town in northern Malawi, drove for more than ten hours to get to the jail where EL was incarcerated. He explained his determination, saying “I was so fired up! I’d just come from SALC’s training … and I said, ‘I want to take up this case’.”

Wesley interviewed EL and offered to take her case pro bono. Wesley contacted SALC, who offered technical support. Their first step was to get an order for anonymity to protect EL’s identity and gain greater control over media reporting. Next, they faced an ethical question. They wanted to challenge the constitutionality of the law but that would take a long time. Because EL was in prison, they decided to undertake a criminal appeal instead. They applied for EL to be let out of custody on bail pending appeal. This is usually a difficult application to win, but they were successful and EL was released from prison.

In the appeal, the court was asked to consider whether the conviction could be justified, whether the penal provision was constitutional (arguing it was overly broad and vague), and whether the sentence was manifestly unjust. Wesley used his learnings from the SALC training to raise international principles and instruments relating to sentencing, which the court referenced and upheld. Michaela Clayton, then Executive Director of the AIDS and Rights Alliance for southern Africa (ARASA), and now a member of HJN’s Supervisory Board, provided expert testimony. Another expert witness, Dr Ruth Brand, identified through HJN’s global network, gave expert scientific evidence to show the risk of HIV transmission had been “infinitesimally small.”

The case was heard by Honourable Justice Zione Ntaba, who held that the proceedings in the trial court were irregular and “blatantly bias” against EL, compromising her right to a fair trial. Justice Ntaba found the charge sheet had been defective and therefore EL’s plea should not have been recorded as guilty. She noted the law must be sensitive to the accused’s knowledge or belief (or lack of) that HIV would be transmitted. Justice Ntaba decided the conviction could not be justified, acknowledging human rights principles against the overly broad criminalisation of HIV non-disclosure, exposure, or transmission. EL’s sentence was set aside. (The Constitutional challenge was referred to a full-member panel of the Constitutional Court although the case was not pursued.)

Notably, Justice Ntaba was a member of the African Regional Judges Forum to discuss HIV, TB and Human Rights (a process which is owned and planned by the judges and run with support from UNDP and funding from the Global Fund).

Fighting the stigma

Shortly after EL’s arrest, the Coalition of Women and Girls Living with HIV and AIDS in Malawi (COWLHA) and the Malawi branch of the International Community of Women Living with HIV/AIDS (ICW-Malawi) discussed the case at a roundtable meeting. At first, everyone was surprised and even laughed, questioning how she could have breastfed someone else’s child. They had never heard of a criminal case involving infant feeding and did not understand what they were dealing with.

During their discussions, COWLHA and ICW-Malawi agreed that the prosecution of EL was a manifestation of stigma and misinformation about HIV in the community. They learned more about the unjust measures that EL had experienced, like being imprisoned without being given a chance to be heard and not being given the chance to prepare and take her medication and things she needed to care for her child. COWLHA and ICW decided to get involved.

Representatives from COWLHA and ICW meet with members of EL’s village. Photo: COWLHA/ICW

Concerned that EL could face social and community hostility after her release, COWHLA and ICW planned a visit to the village to provide psychosocial support to EL and to work with traditional community leaders to provide community sensitisation on HIV, addressing issues of stigma and discrimination. Their efforts helped change some community members’ ideas about HIV.

The community formed two support groups— one for youth and another for adults (notably both were predominantly female groups). They have conducted numerous activities, including home visits, supporting children to go to school, helping the elderly with house chores, and they have a garden where they grow vegetables and rice. They hoped to access loans to become self-reliant. They also had a list of issues they wanted to learn more about, including preventing mother-to-child transmission, sexual and reproductive health, positive living, stigma and discrimination, and treatment literacy.

Visiting EL at home

In September 2019, a three-member team comprising Edna Tembo (Executive Director of COWLHA), Charity Mkona (ICW Board Chair), and Peter Gwazayani (media consultant), set out for EL’s village.

The team was welcomed by the Group Village Headman, who took them to EL’s house. EL recognised Edna from the work COWLHA and ICW-Malawi had done in the community previously. EL welcomed the team with a big smile.

EL and her husband looked cheerful as they laid a mat on the veranda of their house for the visitors. Her mother later joined the discussion.

EL was interested to learn that HJN wanted to write about her case and the type of interventions that had been helpful, to share the story with advocates for HIV justice around the world.

EL recounted that when she returned to the village, “most members of my community received me with happiness, particularly my relatives. The day I arrived, they were jubilant. They celebrated with songs that we normally sing during special occasions in the village.”

COWLHA ED Edna Tembo and Charity Mkona of ICW chat with EL, her husband and her mother (at far distance). Photo: COWLHA/ICW

EL lives with her husband, five children and her mother in a compound made up of three grass thatched houses. She introduced her children:

“The oldest is 13 and she goes to school, as do the second and third. The fourth, a little girl, is the child I was with in prison. She has not yet started school. And then there is this one, who I am breastfeeding. She is the fifth one. She has been tested for HIV on two occasions and will be going for the last test soon. The other two tests have come back HIV-negative.”

EL’s accuser and her family still lives in the same village which has presented some difficulties. EL said that on several occasions she had tried to greet them when they passed each other, but she had been ignored. “They don’t talk to me but from deep down in my heart, I have no grudges against them,” EL said.  “I am just living my normal life,” EL says, although now she says that she would never agree to carry anybody else’s child, for any reason.

Moving beyond criminalisation

With respect to the community-level interventions, lawyer Annabel Raw, who worked at SALC during the time they supported the EL case said:

“As lawyers, we would never have thought to consider such an intervention had ICW-Malawi and COWLHA not shared their insights and been willing to support the client and her community. Their work has been so important to ensuring that meaningful justice was done to combat the actual root cause of the prosecution — stigma and discrimination — and to reconcile EL with her community.”

Engaging with the community also influenced ICW-Malawi and COWLHA’s thinking about HIV criminalisation. COWLHA’s Edna Tembo noted that:

Supporting people who have been prosecuted, particularly women, gives them power, … However, it is very important to stress that psychological support is absolutely vital for those who have been prosecuted. That includes family support, and a supportive community environment enabling acceptance of an individual accused.”

Tembo was also quick to emphasise that there is more work to be done. That work includes awareness raising and ongoing support to the community, especially to identify and train volunteers, empowering them to provide services at community level and to link them to health facilities and district offices for continued support and mentorship.

EL carries her youngest child home. Photo: Amos Gumulira/UNDP Malawi

EL described her dreams for the future:

“My wish now is to see my children progress in school so that they become productive citizens in this community and help it grow. That’s my dream. If they get educated, they will be able to stand on their own and support others. My husband is not employed and it is a challenge to get money for school fees for our children. We would love to get a loan or training to have greater knowledge of economic empowerment because we want to be self-reliant. We would then love to lease some land to grow rice to sell to pay back the loan.

“It’s also my wish to see the lives of all people in the community uplifted. We farm but on a small-scale. If we were to be supported with funds, I’d love to see the community establish big rice farms, working in groups, harvesting for consumption and for sale. In so doing, we would be able to uplift our lives for the better.”

Further Information

Learn more about Wesley’s experiences in EL’s case here and here.

Learn more about the African Regional Judges Forum here.

The full High Court judgement is available here, with a summary included here.

Read more about the successful HIV and AIDS Management Act community advocacy here.


This article is based on information provided by ICW-Malawi and COWLHA following their visits to EL’s village, and an interview with Wesley Mwafulirwa published by UNDP. HJN provided financial and logistical support for the village visits thanks to a grant provided to the HIV Justice Global Consortium from the Robert Carr Fund for civil society networks.     

Russia: Over the past five years, Russian courts have acquitted only one defendant under Article 122 of the Criminal Code

Going to prison for the virus: No acquittals for HIV infection in Russia in three years

Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator, please scroll down for original article in Russian.

Human rights activists, the WHO and the UN all oppose this provision in the Russian Criminal Code.

No chance of acquittal

In one of the most controversial articles of the Russian Criminal Code, the chances of an acquittal are 0 per cent. Cases are heard behind closed doors and verdicts are almost never published. The practice has been opposed by respected global organisations, and even the Russian government has proposed amendments. But for now, the case stands still and the defendants are sent to penal colonies. Where they will not receive proper treatment. We are talking about Article 122 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (HIV infection).

According to the Judicial Department, it is virtually impossible to obtain acquittal for crimes related to HIV transmission. Over the past five years, Russian courts have acquitted only one defendant under Article 122 of the Criminal Code. And from 2018 to 2020, the statistics are quite depressing – all the defendants in such cases have only heard guilty verdicts. Even in cases of treason and espionage, courts acquit more often, Supreme Court documents show (in 3 years, courts have released as many as 5 defendants accused of crimes against state security).

Word and deed

In the winter of 2011, Samara resident Evgeny Kovalev (hereafter the names are changed – ed.) ended up in a drug treatment clinic. The young man had been addicted to illegal substances shortly before, but decided to get rid of his addiction and got registered at the clinic. During the process, they started taking various tests for Yevgeniy, including HIV tests. One of them showed that Kovalev’s organism had antibodies to the infection (they are present at any stage of the disease including asymptomatic stage). He had no symptoms of HIV but was diagnosed with HIV.

At that time Kovalev was dating a girl and was periodically having intimate relations with her. As he will later prove in court, the doctors did not tell him about the positive diagnosis. He only found out about it when he and his girlfriend visited the social centre where they were tested. Although the results of the tests were negative, the couple broke up after the unpleasant news and maintained their friendship. A few months later, however, the girl felt ill and went to the health centre, where the doctor gave her a number of referrals. This is how she found out that she was also infected.

The victim went to the police and Kovalev was detained. He was charged with intentional transmission of HIV (part 2 of article 122 of the Criminal Code). During the hearing, Evgeniy put forward the version that his ex-girlfriend could have been infected by another person, as they always used protection during sex. But the court sided with the victim, who claimed that she had never slept with anyone else. No other evidence was cited in the verdict.

In August 2011, the Kuibyshev District Court of Samara sentenced Kovalev to a real sentence (not specified in the text of the sentence) in a penal colony. Despite having a wife and an underage child, as well as a serious illness, the young man was taken into custody right in the courtroom. He was also charged with moral damages.

In September 2017, a resident of Feodosia (Crimea) reported her mobile phone missing to the police. Her acquaintance Oleg Osipov was suspected. He was summoned to the police station. During the interrogation, there was a conflict between him and an operative named Chudak. After a verbal altercation Oleg suddenly grabbed a decanter from the policeman’s desk, smashed it on a safe and started cutting his hands with broken shards (before that Osipov had not been found guilty of any offence: he had no criminal record, was not registered at a drug treatment facility or a psychiatric clinic). The operative tried to take away the glass, but was struck in the thigh during the scuffle.

After a few minutes, Osipov was restrained and taken to his cell. The man cleaned the wound, the cleaner was scrubbing the blood off the floor. They never found evidence that it was Oleg who had stolen the ill-fated smartphone.

But he was charged with other crimes. For assaulting a police officer in the line of duty (part 2 of article 318 of the Criminal Code). And of knowingly putting another person at risk of HIV infection (part 1 of article 122 of the Criminal Code). It turned out that in December 2012, Osipov learned about his disease and the dispensary took a receipt from him saying that he was warned about the need to comply with sanitary and hygiene standards to avoid infecting other people. This fact was considered by the Investigative Committee to be sufficient for the prosecution.

At trial, Oleg pleaded guilty and repented of what he had done. But the court decided that his correction is possible only in isolation from society and sentenced the man to two years and two months in a penal colony.

Osipov’s appointed lawyer, Oksana Pasichenko, told Sobesednik that she does not know the fate of her former client, but he is “most likely already at large”.

Incidentally, sometimes law enforcers themselves are prosecuted for deliberate HIV infection. In 2015, a police officer was detained in Kaliningrad who had infected nine women.

Despite Osipov’s unfortunate experience, often those accused under Article 122 of the Criminal Code who plead guilty still avoid real sentences. This happened, for example, to Alexey Lozhkin, a resident of Udmurtia who infected his girlfriend with HIV back in 2008. He repented in court and received a one-year suspended sentence.

Fear of confession

The first case of HIV in the USSR was registered in 1987. Lawmakers almost immediately criminalised intentional transmission of HIV; article 115.2 was added to the Criminal Code of the USSR, which later became article 122 of the Russian Criminal Code.

Russian law still does not clearly describe the circumstances under which criminal liability for HIV-positive individuals arises.

The law puts HIV-positive people before other citizens, says Mariya Godlevskaya, peer counselor of the E.V.A. association (she herself found out about her infection in 1999).

– That`s why many HIV-positive people are afraid to tell their environment about their status”, Godlevskaya says. – Article 122 of the Criminal Code puts people in a corner, criminalising anyone who has HIV. The sole responsibility for his or her health shifts to the individual. And yet there are cases when HIV-positive people are simply blackmailed by their former partners. Although it is known that a person on antiretrovirals cannot infect another person, the judicial practice simply does not take this into account.

WHO and the UN have long called for the decriminalisation of HIV infection. And in a number of countries the situation, albeit slowly, is beginning to change. For example, this year, the state of Illinois (USA) decriminalised HIV transmission. A similar proposal back in 2017 was put forward by the Russian government, but it was never approved.

“Contagious” Article

Article 122 of the Russian Criminal Code punishes both HIV infection itself and “knowingly putting another person at risk of infection”. It can be punishable by imprisonment for up to one year. If the defendant knew he or she had the disease, he or she could be sent to prison for five years. If the victim is a minor or two or more people, the perpetrator faces up to 8 years in prison.

In the statistics of the Supreme Court, cases under Art. 122 are combined with cases under Art. 121 (infection with a sexually transmitted disease), so it is impossible to draw an exact conclusion about what kind of punishment the courts are choosing. It is known that in 2020, the number of actual and suspended sentences were about the same – 28 people went to prison and 29 remained free. Ten received restriction of liberty (unable to travel abroad) and one received compulsory labour.

Human rights activists believe that such measures do not work, although they are used in many countries around the world. The list of such measures does not include those countries which are considered to be developed.

Myths

Society is still full of myths about HIV and its terminal stage, AIDS. One of the main ones is the supposedly high mortality rate of the disease.

In reality, HIV-positive people live as long as the average person. As long as they take antiretroviral medication. In this case the person is not contagious. However, the Russian code makes no distinction between those who take medication and those who refuse treatment.


В тюрьму за вирус: В России за три года нет ни одного оправдательного приговора по статье о заражении ВИЧ

Против этой нормы в УК РФ выступают и правозащитники, и ВОЗ, и ООН.

Без шанса на оправдание

0% – таковы шансы, что обвиняемого оправдают по одной из самых спорных статей Уголовного кодекса России. Дела по ней рассматриваются в закрытом режиме, тексты приговоров практически никогда не публикуются. Против этой практики выступают авторитетные всемирные организации, свои поправки предлагало даже российское правительство. Но пока дело стоит на месте, а подсудимых отправляют в колонии. Где они не смогут получить надлежащего лечения. Речь идет о ст. 122 УК РФ (заражение ВИЧ-инфекцией).

Согласно данным судебного департамента, за преступления, связанные с передачей ВИЧ-инфекции, практически невозможно добиться оправдательного приговора. За последние 5 лет российские суды освободили всего одного обвиняемого по ст. 122 УК РФ. А с 2018-го по 2020-ый статистика совсем удручающая – все фигуранты подобных дел слышали лишь обвинительные вердикты. Даже по делам о госизмене и шпионаже суды оправдывают чаще, следует из документов Верховного суда (за 3 года суды освободили целых 5 обвиняемых в преступлениях против безопасности государства).

Слова и дело

Зимой 2011-го житель Самары Евгений Ковалев (здесь и далее имена изменены – ред.) оказался в наркологическом диспансере. Молодой человек незадолго до этого пристрастился к запрещенным веществам, но решил избавиться от пагубной зависимости и встал на динамический учет. В процессе у Евгения стали брать различные анализы, в том числе и на ВИЧ. Один из них показал: в организме Ковалева есть антитела к инфекции (они присутствуют на любой стадии заболевания, в т.ч. и на бессимптомной). Никаких симптомов ВИЧ у пациента не было, но по результатам анализа ему поставили диагноз – ВИЧ (Z-21).

В то время Ковалев встречался с девушкой и периодически вступал с ней в интимные отношения. Как впоследствии будет доказывать молодой человек суду, врачи не рассказали ему о положительном диагнозе. Он узнал об этом только во время совместного с подругой визита в социальный центр, где они сдали анализы. И хотя результаты анализа девушки были отрицательными, после неприятного известия пара рассталась, сохранив дружеские отношения. Впрочем, через несколько месяцев девушке стало плохо, она пришла в поликлинику, где врач ей выписал ряд направлений. Так она узнала, что тоже заражена.

Потерпевшая обратилась в полицию и Ковалева задержали. Ему предъявили обвинение в умышленном заражении ВИЧ-инфекцией (ч.2 ст.122 УК). В ходе слушаний Евгений выдвинул версию, что его бывшая девушка могла быть заражена другим человеком, поскольку они всегда предохранялись во время секса. Но суд встал на сторону потерпевшей, которая утверждала, что больше ни с кем не спала. Других доказательств в приговоре не приводится.

В августе 2011-года Куйбышевский районный суд Самары приговорил Ковалева к реальному сроку (в тексте приговора он не указан) в колонии. Несмотря на наличие жены и несовершеннолетнего ребенка, а также тяжелого заболевания, молодого человека взяли под стражу прямо в зале суда. Кроме того, с него взыскали моральный ущерб.

Срок за графин

В сентябре 2017-го жительница Феодосии (Крым) сообщила в полицию о пропаже мобильного телефона. Подозрение пало на ее знакомого Олега Осипова. Его вызвали в отдел полиции. В ходе допроса между ним и опером по фамилии Чудак произошел конфликт. После словесной перебранки Олег внезапно схватил со стола полицейского графин, разбил его о сейф и осколками начал резать себе руки (до того Осипов не был замечен ни в каких правонарушениях: судимостей не имел, на учете в нарко- и психдиспансере не состоял). Чудак попытался отнять стекло, но во время потасовки получил удар в бедро.

Через несколько минут Осипова удалось скрутить и отвести в камеру. Чудак зализывал рану, уборщица отмывала кровь с пола. Доказательств того, что именно Олег украл тот злосчастный смартфон, так и на нашли.

Но его обвинили в других преступлениях. В нападении на полицейского при исполнении (ч.2 ст.318 УК). И в заведомом поставлении другого лица в опасность заражения ВИЧ-инфекцией (ч.1 ст.122 УК). Выяснилось, что в декабре 2012-го Осипов узнал о своем заболевании и в диспансере у него взяли расписку о том, что он предупрежден о необходимости соблюдения санитарно-гигиенических норм для избежания заражения других людей. Этого факта СК посчитал достаточным для обвинения.

На суде Олег признал свою вину и раскаялся в содеянном. Но суд решил, что его исправление возможно лишь в условиях изоляции от общества и приговорил мужчину к 2 годам 2 месяцам колонии общего режима.

Адвокат Осипова по назначению Оксана Пасиченко сказала «Собеседнику», что не знает о судьбе своего бывшего подзащитного, но он, “скорее всего, уже на свободе”.

Кстати, иногда за умышленное заражение ВИЧ судят и самих стражей порядка. В 2015-м в Калининграде задержали полицейского, который заразил девятерых женщин.

Несмотря на печальный опыт Осипова, зачастую обвиняемые по 122 ст. УК, которые идут на признание вины, все же избегают реальных сроков. Так случилось, например, с жителем Удмуртии Алексеем Ложкиным, который еще в 2008-м заразил ВИЧ свою девушку. Он раскаялся в суде и получил 1 год условно.

Боязнь признаться

Первый случай заболевания ВИЧ в СССР был зарегистрирован в 1987-м. Законодатели практически сразу криминализировали его умышленную передачу – так в УК РСФСР появилась ст. 115.2, позже превратившаяся в 122 ст. УК РФ.

В российском законодательстве до сих пор нет четкого описания обстоятельств, при которых наступает уголовная ответственность для ВИЧ-положительных.

Законодательство ставит ВИЧ-положительного человека ниже остальных граждан, считает равный консультант ассоциации «Е.В.А» Мария Годлевская (сама она узнала о том, что заражена, в 1999-м).

– Поэтому многие ВИЧ-положительные боятся рассказать окружению о своем статусе, – уверяет Годлевская. – Ст. 122 УК загоняет человека в угол, криминализируя любого, у которого есть ВИЧ-инфекция. Вся ответственность за здоровье ложится исключительно на него. А ведь есть случаи, когда ВИЧ-положительных просто начинают шантажировать их бывшие партнеры. И хотя известно, что находящийся на антиретровирусных препаратах не способен заразить другого, судебная практика данный момент попросту не учитывает.

ВОЗ и ООН давно требуют декриминализации заражения ВИЧ-инфекцией. И в ряде стран ситуация, хотя медленно, но начинает меняться. Так, в этом году штат Иллинойс (США) отменил уголовную ответственность за передачу ВИЧ. Аналогичное предложение еще в 2017-м выдвигало и правительстве России, но оно так и не было одобрено.

«Заразная» статья

Ст. 122 УК РФ карает как за само заражение ВИЧ-инфекцией, так и за «заведомое поставление другого лица в опасность заражения». Может наказываться лишением свободы на срок до одного года. Если обвиняемый знал о наличии у него заболевания, его могут отправить в колонию на 5 лет. Если потерпевшим является несовершеннолетний, либо два и более лица, виновнику грозит до 8 лет лишения свободы.

В статистике ВС дела по 122 ст. объединены с делами по ст. 121 (заражение венерическим заболеванием), поэтому нельзя сделать точный вывод о том, какие наказания избирают суды. Известно, что в 2020-м число реальных и условных сроков было примерно одинаковым – 28 человек отправились в колонию, 29 остались на свободе. 10 получили ограничение свободы (не смогут выезжать за границу), один – обязательные работы.

Правозащитники же считают, что такие меры не работают, хотя применяются во многих странах мира. В том числе и тех, кого принято считать развитыми.

Мифы

В обществе до сих пор есть много мифов вокруг ВИЧ и его терминальной стадии – СПИД. Один из главных – в якобы высокой смертности от этого заболевания.

На деле ВИЧ-положительные люди живут столько же, сколько в среднем обычный человек. При условии приема антиретровирусных препаратов. В этом случае человек не является заразным. Однако российский УК не делает разницы между теми, кто принимает препараты, и теми, кто отказался от лечения.

 

 

Colombia: Constitutional court condemns restaurant for not hiring a young man with HIV

The Constitutional Court condemned a well-known restaurant chain in the country for having discriminated against a citizen who applied for a job within said chain.  It stopped the hiring process when it found out that the man was HIV positive. Due to this situation, the Court urged the Ministry of Labor to promptly address complaints in job selection processes for discrimination and establish guidelines for employers.According to the Constitutional Court In Judgment T-031/21, the young man whose identity was protected as a protection measure, filed a reference guardianship on October 22, 2019 by the First Civil Municipal Court of Cali, considering that he was a victim of discrimination by of ‘Mr. Wok ‘, because of being HIV positive, diagnosed since 2016 as an asymptomatic carrier.

According to the young man, the company did not take into account his cognitive ability, academic training and work experience, only his pathology. The Court ruled in favour of the young man and pointed out that they found irregularities in the actions of the IPS and the company.

The Court ruled in favour of the young man and noted that it found irregularities in the actions of the IPS and the company. Regarding the former, it noted that “it evaded the constitutional and legal guidelines that govern it and failed to comply with the duties that frame the ethical conduct of its activity by revealing confidential information related to the applicant’s serological status”.

On the other hand, the restaurant ignored the limits that demarcate the principles of the autonomy of private will and freedom of enterprise, in accordance with the general rules governing due process in relations between private individuals, in the context of a labour selection process”.

The case will now be brought to the attention of the National Superintendence of Health so that it can establish the respective sanction.


Corte condena a restaurante por no contratar a un joven portador de VIH

La Corte Constitucional condenó a una reconocida cadena de restaurantes del país por haber discriminado a un ciudadano que aplicó a un puesto de trabajo dentro de dicha cadena, la cual detuvo el proceso de contratación al conocer que el hombre era VIH positivo.

Por esta situación la Corte exhortó al Ministerio del Trabajo para que atienda oportunamente las quejas en procesos de selección laboral por discriminación y establezca lineamientos para los empleadores.

Según lo relató la Corte Constitucional en la Sentencia T-031/21, el joven al que protegieron su identidad como medida de protección, interpuso una tutela de referencia el 22 de octubre de 2019 por el Juzgado Primero Civil Municipal de Cali, al considerar que fue víctima de discriminación por parte de ‘Sr. Wok’, a causa de ser VIH positivo, diagnosticado desde 2016 como portador asintomático.

Según el joven, la empresa, no tuvo en cuenta su capacidad cognitiva, formación académica y experiencia laboral, únicamente su patología.

La Corte falló a favor del joven y señaló que encontró irregularidades en el accionar de la IPS y de la empresa. Sobre la primera señaló que “evadió los lineamientos constitucionales y legales que la rigen e incumplió los deberes que enmarcan la conducta ética de su actividad al revelar información confidencial relacionada con el estado serológico del accionante”.

Por otro lado, el restaurante desconoció los límites que demarcan los principios de la autonomía de la voluntad privada y la libertad de empresa, de conformidad con las reglas generales que rigen el debido proceso en las relaciones entre particulares, en el contexto de un proceso de selección laboral”.

El caso, ahora será puesto en conocimiento de la Superintendencia Nacional de Salud para que esta establezca la sanción respectiva.

Colombia: Constitutional Court rules in favour of soldier living with HIV, reaffirming his constitutional rights

The battle an active soldier diagnosed with HIV won against the Army in Colombia

Translation via Deepl.com. For original article in Spanish, please scroll down.

To protect his fundamental rights to social security, the Sixth Chamber of the Constitutional Court ruled in favor of an active soldier diagnosed with HIV.

In 2015, an active soldier was evaluated by the Military Health Directorate of the National Army through a Medical Labor Board, there, he was evaluated for “the possible decrease of psychophysical aptitudes” after an HIV diagnosis, but he was not guaranteed treatment or follow-up by the institution.

That is to say, the soldier has had to comply with his treatment and all that it entails, in a private manner.

The 2015 report “was incomplete”, since it did not assign a percentage of loss of working capacity.

Nor did it establish criteria to determine the progress of his infection or the subsequent deterioration of his clinical conditions, the Constitutional Court explained.

In the tutela filed by the uniformed officer, three years later the Directorate denied him the possibility of repeating that evaluation “to determine the levels of his work reduction due to suffering from other illnesses that were aggravated as a result of HIV.”

Decision of the Court

Following the decision, the Sixth Chamber of Review, with Judge Gloria Stella Ortiz Delgado presiding, reaffirmed that persons with HIV are entitled to special constitutional protection.

In the specific case, the Constitutional Court argued: “The assessment carried out by the DISAN EJC in 2015 was incomplete, lacked motivation and did not analyze the medical history of the plaintiff in a comprehensive manner”.

Therefore, the Constitutional Court ordered the formation of a new Labor Medical Board.
It also recalled the obligation to respond in a timely manner to the requests made in this type of proceedings, especially in the case of members of the Army. Finally, the DISAN EJC was warned about the duty to provide the medicines required for the treatment of HIV.

Thus, the Chamber protected the rights to social security and administrative due process of the professional soldier on active duty.

He had been denied the procedures to monitor his disease and provide him with the necessary treatment.

This decision of the Court sets a precedent for members not only of the Army, but of the public force in the country.


Para proteger sus derechos fundamentales a la seguridad social, la Sala Sexta de la Corte Constitucional falló a favor de un soldado activo, diagnosticado con VIH.

Noticias Colombia.

En el 2015 un soldado activo fue evaluado por la Dirección de Sanidad Militar del Ejército Nacional a través de una Junta Médico Laboral, allí, se le evaluó por “la posible disminución de las aptitudes psicofísicas” tras un diagnóstico de VIH, pero no se le garantizó tratamiento ni seguimiento en la institución.

Es decir, el militar ha tenido que cumplir su tratamiento y todo lo que conlleva, de manera particular.

El dictamen del 2015 “resultó incompleto”, ya que no asignó un porcentaje de pérdida de capacidad laboral.

Tampoco estableció criterios para determinar el progreso de su infección o el posterior deterioro de sus condiciones clínicas, explicó la Corte Constitucional.

En la tutela que interpuso el uniformado, tres años después la Dirección le negó la posibilidad de repetir esa evaluación “para determinar los niveles de su disminución laboral por padecer otras enfermedades que se agravaron por consecuencia del VIH”.

Decisión de la Corte

Tras la decisión, la Sala Sexta de Revisión, con ponencia de la magistrada Gloria Stella Ortiz Delgado, reafirmó que las personas con VIH son titulares de una especial protección constitucional.

En el caso concreto, la Corte Constitucional argumentó: “La valoración efectuada por la DISAN EJC en 2015 resultó incompleta, incurrió en falta de motivación y no analizó la historia clínica del accionante de forma integral”.

Por lo tanto, la Corte Constitucional ordenó conformar una nueva Junta Médico Laboral.
También, se recordó la obligación de responder oportunamente las solicitudes elevadas en este tipo de trámites, especialmente cuando se trate de miembros del Ejército.
Finalmente, se advirtió a la DISAN EJC sobre el deber de suministrar los medicamentos que se requieran para el tratamiento del VIH.

Así la Sala protegió los derechos a la seguridad social y al debido proceso administrativo del soldado profesional en servicio activo.

Se le habían negado los procedimientos para hacerle seguimiento a su enfermedad y brindarle el tratamiento necesario.

Esta decisión de la Corte sienta un precedente para miembros no solo del Ejército, sino de la fuerza pública en el país.

Russia: On Sexual Health Day, medical experts express their views on HIV criminalisation

Law on HIV and STI Infection is Outdated and Removes Personal Responsibility for Health

Automatic translation via Deepl. For original article in Russian, please scroll down.

We asked a psychologist, gynecologist, infectious disease specialist and a medical lawyer what they think about Articles 121 and 122 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.

On Saturday, Russia celebrated Sexual Health Day without much fanfare. While the tradition of ranting about sexual health has not yet caught on in the Russian Federation, neither has sex education, which did not take root in the wild 90s. In Russia’s Criminal Code today, Articles 121 and 122, which provide penalties for those infected with HIV and sexually transmitted diseases, are rooted in the 90s. In law enforcement, these articles are only as visible as the presence of sex education on federal television and popular medicine. But they are there, and even sometimes used. We spoke to medical experts about their views on the criminalisation of HIV and STI transmission by law.

Alexander Rusin, obstetrician-gynaecologist, dermatovenerologist:

– When these articles were invented, the situation was a little different. A lot of time has passed since then. If we are talking about Article 122 (HIV infection), the situation is such that at the time when this article was in force, it was indeed very relevant. It was very dangerous to be sexually active. Not everyone [living with HIV] was receiving therapy, it was scarce and the number of infections was high.

Now, when there is still a large coverage with therapy – those people who take it, after six months, already have a suppressed viral load and do not present – then perhaps it (the Criminal Code article) is a bit inappropriate.

But we must always remember that in our sphere there are always dissidents who are sick and cannot admit the fact that they are sick, deny in every possible way and, unfortunately, in some cases contribute to the infection of other people. For such a cohort, an article is required. And, if a person knows about his status and continues to have a sex life, a more severe punishment is possible, and not two or three years in a colony.

It’s one thing if you know and do all the possible conditions so as not to infect anyone – that’s great. And if you know and continue to put the risk, then you have to be criminally punished.

Syphilis is a little different. Here, too, the fact is important, do you know about your diagnosis. If you do not know and you infect, then you are not punishable. Believe me, there are few people who find out that they have syphilis and decide – not to go and have sex. People are in shock and are thinking how to recover as soon as possible.

But the wording in the law on the “risk of infection” is also strange. When I am asked at lectures and webinars who are at risk for syphilis and HIV, I say that this is such a stupid question. The risk group is everyone who is sexually active. Yes, there are cohorts who are more vulnerable, but I know sex workers who know everything and protect themselves, and there are those who just stumbled once and got infected.

Anton Eremin, infectious disease doctor, Medical Director of AIDS.CENTER Foundation:

– After 40 years of HIV research and significant biomedical advances in treatment and transmission prevention, many laws are outdated and do not reflect a modern understanding of HIV. Most of these laws were enacted at a time when there was very little information about HIV.

Many of them criminalise behaviours that may not result in HIV transmission – such as biting, spitting or kissing – and apply regardless of actual transmission.

Today we know for a fact that an HIV-positive person who takes effective treatment and follows medical advice cannot transmit HIV through any kind of sexual contact. Modern therapy reduces the level of the virus in the blood to almost zero, and the life expectancy of a person with HIV is no different from the average life expectancy in the population.

Leading scientists believe that the penalties for HIV transmission are largely ineffective. At a major international AIDS conference in 2018, a group of leading clinicians released a paper calling for a review of laws aimed at criminalising HIV.

As the consensus statement explains, these laws are not always based on the best available scientific and medical evidence, but instead reflect a perpetuation of ignorance and irrational fear directed at people living with HIV. In addition, these laws have been proven to discourage HIV testing, increase stigma and exacerbate inequality. UNAIDS (the UN agency for HIV/AIDS) and WHO are calling for similar measures.

Elizaveta Bisyukova, clinical psychologist, co-founder of the Association for the Development of Sexuality Education and the Promotion of Reproductive Health:

– Intentionally contracting a sexually transmitted disease is a harm to health that can have irreversible consequences. The existence of criminal responsibility for such an act is therefore justified. But with low levels of sexual education it may be unintentional.

As a result, along with the sexual experience a person is forced to get acquainted with a sexually transmitted disease clinic, but before that he or she can infect someone else.

It is the lack of knowledge about how infections are transmitted, methods of contraception, precautionary measures and prevention of possible negative consequences that most often causes the spread of sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV.

We believe that it is crucial to introduce sexuality education in our country. The experience of countries where this is already in place shows a reduction in the incidence of sexually transmitted infections, and in addition, it reduces the number of unwanted pregnancies and abortions among minors.

Dmitry Bartenev, head of human rights practice at ONEGINGROUP, PhD:

– There is no practice of applying these articles because rarely do people apply to law enforcement agencies to initiate such cases. I have had two cases under these articles in my practice. But one concerned professional activities and the risk of HIV infection and the other concerned trivial intimate relations. But although the police conducted a check, in the end it did not lead to anything.

It is impossible to prove the link between intimate contact and infection from a specific person. Because, conventionally speaking, it is possible to have sexual contact with a person with a venereal disease or HIV infection, but to acquire the infection in a different way.

Although there are such sentences for HIV infection. And what I see is that judges just don’t think about it and don’t investigate the link between a particular sexual contact with a particular person and the disease. It’s not some unique virus or bacteria. It’s something that is in the population as a whole.

I believe that these articles of the Criminal Code, on the one hand, shift the responsibility for one’s health and safety to the individual, who is obligated to use protection, obligated not to have sexual contact if their partner refuses not to use protection.

On the other hand, these articles largely stigmatise HIV infection and, to a lesser extent, sexually transmitted diseases. Clearly, Article 122 creates a perception in society of the excessive, absolute danger of people with HIV infection, rather than combating this stigma. We live in the twenty-first century and know that this infection is only transmitted by certain routes.

On the other hand, it reduces people’s responsibility for their health. Because people should understand that prevention of HIV infection is about their own behaviour, not the behaviour of others. This also applies to the issues of protection, use of barrier protection, reasonableness in the choice of sexual partners and so on.


Эксперты: Закон о заражении ВИЧ и ИППП устарел и снимает личную ответственность за здоровье

Мы спросили у психолога, гинеколога, инфекциониста и медицинского адвоката, что они думают о статьях 121 и 122 УК РФ

В субботу без особого размаха в России отметили День сексуального здоровья. Пока традиция громкоговорения об интимном здоровье не докатилась до РФ, как и половое воспитание, не прижившеесееся в лихие 90-е. Родом из тех же 90-х в нынешнем УК РФ ютятся статьи 121 и 122, предусматривающие наказание за заражение ВИЧ и инфекциями, передающимися половым путем. В правоприменении эти статьи видимы настолько же, насколько присутствует секс-просвет на федеральном телевидении и в популярной медицине. Но де-юре они есть, и даже иногда используются. Мы пообщались с экспертами в области медицины о том, как они относятся к криминализующим передачу ВИЧ и ИППП нормам закона.

Александр Русин, акушер-гинеколог, дерматовенеролог:

– Когда эти статьи придумывали, ситуация немного была иная. С тех пор прошло много времени. Если мы говорим про статью 122 (заражение ВИЧ-инфекцией), то ситуация складывается таким образом, что в то время, когда эта статья действовала, она, действительно была очень актуальна. Было очень опасно вести половую жизнь. Терапию получали далеко не все [живущие с ВИЧ пациенты], ее было мало и число заражений было большим.

Сейчас, когда все-таки большой обхват терапией – те люди, которые ее принимают, спустя шесть месяцев уже имеют подавленную вирусную нагрузку и не представляют – то, наверное, она (статья УК РФ) немного неправомочна.

Но мы должны всегда помнить, что в нашей сфере всегда существуют диссиденты, которые болеют и не могут признать тот факт, что они больны, всячески отрицают и, к сожалению, в некоторых случаях способствуют заражению других людей. Вот для такой когорты нужно обязательно статью. И, если человек знает о своем статусе и продолжает вести половую жизнь, можно и более жесткое наказание, а не два-три года колонии.

Одно дело, если ты знаешь и делаешь все возможные условия, чтобы не заразить никого – это отлично. А если знаешь и продолжаешь подвергать риску, то надо уголовно наказывать.

Что касается сифилиса, то тут немного иначе. Тут тоже важен факт, знаешь ли ты о своем диагнозе. Если ты не знаешь и заражаешь, то ты ненаказуем. Поверьте, мало таких людей, которые узнают, что у них сифилис и решают, – а не пойти-ка мне позаниматься сексом. У людей шок и они думают, как бы поскорее вылечиться.

Но и формулировка в законе о «риске заражения» – странная. Когда меня спрашивают на лекциях и вебинарах, кто в группе риске по сифилису и ВИЧ, я говорю, что это такой глупый вопрос. Группа риска – все, кто живет половой жизнью. Да, есть когорты, кто более уязвим, но я знаю секс-работников, которые все знают и себя защищают, а есть те, кто просто единожды оступились и заразились.

Антон Еремин, врач-инфекционист, медицинский директор фонда “СПИД.ЦЕНТР”:

– После 40 лет исследований ВИЧ и значительных биомедицинских достижений в области лечения и профилактики передачи многие законы устарели и не отражают современного понимания ВИЧ. Большая часть этих законов были приняты в то время, когда информации о ВИЧ было очень мало.

Многие из них предусматривают уголовную ответственность за поведение, которое не может привести к передаче ВИЧ – например, укус, плевок или поцелуй, и применяются независимо от фактической передачи.

Сегодня мы точно знаем, что ВИЧ-положительный человек, принимающий эффективное лечение и следующий рекомендациям врачей не может передать ВИЧ при любых сексуальных контактах. Современная терапия снижает уровень вируса в крови практически до нуля, а ожидаемая продолжительность жизни человека с ВИЧ не отличается от средней продолжительности жизни в популяции.

Ведущие ученые считают, что наказание за передачу ВИЧ в большинстве случаев неэффективно. На крупнейшей международной конференции по СПИДу в 2018 году группа ведущих врачей выпустила документ, призывающий пересмотреть законы, направленные на криминализацию ВИЧ.

Как поясняется в консенсусном заявлении, эти законы не всегда основываются на наилучших доступных научных и медицинских доказательствах, а, напротив, отражают увековечивание невежества и иррационального страха, направленных на людей, живущих с ВИЧ. Кроме того, доказано, что эти законы препятствуют тестированию на ВИЧ, усиливают стигму и усугубляют неравенство. К аналогичным мерам призывают ЮНЭЙДС (агентство ООН по ВИЧ/СПИДу) и ВОЗ.

Елизавета Бизюкова, клинический психолог, соучредитель Ассоциации развития сексуального образования и укрепления репродуктивного здоровья:

– Намеренное заражение венерической болезнью – это причинение вреда здоровью, которое может иметь необратимые последствия. Поэтому существование уголовной ответственности за такой поступок вполне оправданно. Но при низком уровне полового просвещения это может иметь неумышленный характер.

Как результат, вместе с сексуальным опытом человек вынужденно знакомится с кожно-венерологическим диспансером, но до этого может еще кого-то заразить.

Именно отсутствие знаний о способах передачи инфекций, способах контрацепции, мерах предосторожности и профилактики возможных негативных последствий чаще всего является причиной распространения заболеваний, передающихся половым путем, в том числе и ВИЧ.

Мы считаем, что крайне важно ввести систему сексуального образования в нашей стране. Опыт стран, где это уже присутствует, показывает снижение заболеваемости инфекциями, передающимися половым путем, а кроме этого, снижает число нежелательных беременностей и абортов среди несовершеннолетних.

Дмитрий Бартенев, руководитель правозащитной практики ONEGINGROUP, к.ю.н.:

– Практика применения этих статей отсутствует, потому что редко кто обращается в правоохранительные органы с заявлениями о возбуждении таких дел. В моей практике было два дела по этим статьям. Но одно касалось профессиональной деятельности и риска заражения ВИЧ-инфекцией, а второе касалось банальных интимных отношений. Но хотя полиция проводила проверку, в итоге это ни во что не вылилось.

Невозможно доказать связь между интимным контактом и заражением от конкретного человека. Потому что, условно говоря, можно иметь половой контакт с лицом, больным венерической болезнью или ВИЧ-инфекцией, но получить эту инфекцию другим путем.

Хотя такие приговоры по ВИЧ-инфекции есть. И то, что я вижу, это судьи просто не задумываются и не исследуют вопрос о связи между конкретным половым контактом с конкретным человеком и заболеванием. Это же не какой-то уникальный вирус или бактерии. Это то, что есть в популяции в целом.

Я считаю, что эти статьи Уголовного кодекса, с одной стороны, перекладывают ответственность за свое здоровье и безопасность на самого человека, который обязан использовать средства предохранения, обязан не вступать в половой контакт, если его партнер отказывается не использовать средства предохранения.

С другой стороны, эти статьи стигматизируют во многом ВИЧ-инфекцию и, в меньшей степени, венерические заболевания. Однозначно, что статья 122 создает представление в обществе о чрезмерной, абсолютной опасности людей с ВИЧ-инфекцией вместо того чтобы бороться с этой стигмой. Мы живем в XXI веке и знаем, что эта инфекция передается только определенными путями.

С другой стороны, это снижает ответственность людей за свое здоровье. Потому что люди должны понимать, что профилактика ВИЧ-инфекции – это собственное поведение, а не поведение других. Это касается и вопросов предохранения, использования барьерных средств защиты, разумность в выборе половых партнеров и прочее.

Russia: In 2021, people living with HIV are still facing criminalisation, stigma, healthcare denial, dismissal and deportation

Who protects people with HIV in St Petersburg and how?

Stigma, denial of health services, dismissal, deportation – these are just some of the problems HIV-positive people in Russia can face. For 25 years Positive Dialogue NGO helps people with these problems.

A quiet street in the centre of St. Petersburg, a yard with bright graffiti – a portrait of a girl with long hair and the text Lu Blue. No other graffiti so far.

Mikhail Stupishin, the head of Positive Dialogue, meets me at the door. A few steps down, and we are in a bright office. The Positive Dialogue only recently moved into the building, because for years before it was located on the grounds of Botkin Infectious Diseases Hospital.

– The first quarter of the 21st century is coming to an end and people still have HIV-phobic cockroaches in their heads,” laughs Mikhail, pouring coffee and talking about the move. – Four premises were refused to us due to the nature of our business. At the preview, we explained that we are now focused on individual counselling and not on mass events, we said that we have a flow of clients, but not as a mausoleum, that we work with a socially significant disease – HIV infection. We were told: “Yes, yes, yes, everything is great”. And when it came to concluding an agreement, they said: “We looked at the website what you do. This is too extreme for us”.

I am reminded of Anna, the heroine of my text ‘Anna and Her Victories’, a mentee of Positive Dialogue. What is extreme is the treatment she and many other people face time and again because of their HIV-positive status. For example, when her own mother, an experienced health worker, forces her daughter to eat from separate dishes even though there is no contact-domestic transmission of HIV. Or when a person is not wanted to work because of his/her HIV status, despite the fact that thanks to therapy (free and accessible) his/her viral load has been undetectable for a long time – this means that he/she cannot infect anybody in any way. Anna told us that in the most desperate situations she called Positive Dialogue and thanks to her conversation with lawyer Alexander Loza she solved problems with her job and then with her studies more than once.

Alexander joins Mikhail and me, we shake hands and begin a conversation that lasts more than two hours, but even that time seems short. The problems faced by people with HIV in Russia are too many.

“Positive Dialogue started as far back as 25 years ago. It was founded by Nikolai Panchenko, a lawyer and one of the first registered HIV-positive people in the USSR. He recently celebrated his 70th birthday and handed over the leadership of the organisation to Mikhail Stupishin a few years ago, but Panchenko’s name keeps coming up in conversation – it was he who started the education work, talking about HIV prevention and life with HIV. This is as necessary now as it was a quarter of a century ago.

– Sasha has been working here since 2004, and I joined in 2015,” says Mikhail. – At that time two big prevention projects were launched: HIV prevention among men who have sex with men and HIV prevention among female sex workers. I came upon the recommendation of an acquaintance. I have secondary medical education. I am not a doctor but a paramedic. I know anatomy well, I know pathophysiology well, or at least I knew it, I understand where the legs are growing from.

In addition to his medical education, Mikhail graduated from the University of Culture, and Alexander studied at St. Petersburg State University. A medical doctor and a lawyer, both have extensive experience of working with people in difficult life situations.

– Many people need legal advice,” says Alexander. – Not everyone has the money to pay for a consultation, not everyone wants to talk about their specific problems, and not all lawyers are practiced at it.

– Do they often come to you with work-related issues? – I ask. But it turns out to be not quite what I imagined.

According to Alexander, medical workers who have to undergo compulsory tests, including HIV tests, every year are most afraid of being fired. However, police officers and employees of the Ministry of Emergency Situations also seek advice: contrary to the federal legislation, these agencies impose a complete ban on work for HIV-positive people – they issue local acts on undergoing medical examinations and declare them unfit or limited fit for service.

– Is there anything you can do in such situations?

– Well, back in Soviet times, an act was passed that people with HIV infection could not be commanders of aircraft,” Alexander sighs. – Five or seven years ago, one captain was diagnosed with HIV. He went to the General Prosecutor’s Office, the General Prosecutor’s Office went to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court ruled the act illegal. But the man had to disclose his status to everyone. It is not about the court per se – a person’s name can be hidden in the documents. But the employer often puts pressure on the employee, may spread rumours about him.

Mikhail cites the story of his acquaintance, who was literally “eaten up” at work, in the most ordinary office, when he found out about his HIV status. Litigating in such situations can be futile: legally, the case is a win-win – the dismissal is illegal, but they will not give you life at work.

People rarely go to court against employers, and as a rule, it is high-profile cases that change the local normative acts of an organization.

– We have it written into the law that this is discrimination, that the employer will be fined, there is criminal liability,” Alexander says. – But everyone tries to do it quietly: you resign at your own request, you get some severance pay, and you leave quietly (what happens to you next is your problem), while we will be white and fluffy. I always say that fighting for one’s rights is fraught: they can create such conditions that a person will be forced to leave. Constant stress is also bad for the body.

Last year, according to Alexander, the Prosecutor General’s Office tried to issue a local act banning people with HIV from working, but there was an uproar and the agency had to abandon the idea. But the Ministry of Railways and Communication seems to have succeeded in introducing a local ban.

– In general, if you start having problems at work because of your HIV status, the only way out is to look for a normal employer?

– We don’t have a ‘normal employer’ as such,” Alexander shakes his head.

– It’s not so much about the employer,” adds Mikhail, “it’s more about your direct supervisor or upper management if you are in his position.

He recounts cases of people being tested for HIV without their knowledge when they are hired. This practice is, of course, illegal:

– The issue of informing about a person’s status is generally very strict: no disclosure, only at the official request of the court or the prosecutor’s office. Only then the AIDS Centre is obliged to provide information whether the person is registered or not. If a person realises that he or she has not told anyone about his or her status, but the employer has the information, it means that during the medical examination, blood was taken for HIV infection. But, in theory, the employer cannot make any further moves, because the whole story is illegal.

– And what other problems do people come up with?

– Access to medical services,” Alexander answers without thinking for a second. – It happens that a person has to undergo a planned surgery, he knows that he is HIV-positive, and in the medical institution they either try to talk him out of it or redirect him somewhere else, or just put him into a paid ward, even though everything should be free of charge under the MHI.

– They either try to charge him money or refuse to take him at all because of his HIV status,” Mihail says without euphemisms.

– No one says it directly, they start using various medical terminology or “your indications are not right, maybe in a year”. In medical institutions we always recommend to ask for a written refusal. What the doctor says in the corridor, you will not be able to prove anywhere else. The doctor realises that by writing such a refusal he or she will put himself or herself and his or her medical centre in danger. And then the doctors are more likely to put on double gloves and do everything, gritting their teeth, – Alexander is sure.

– And they will do it as well as possible, so I won’t have to come back again,” laughs Mikhail.

– At the same time, everyone treats hepatitis C, which is more dangerous, much more easily,” says Alexander, bewildered. – If you tell dentists that you have hepatitis C, the doctors will take it easier than if you tell them about HIV.

IF YOU MENTION HIV, YOU’LL PROBABLY HEAR: “NO, NO, NO, WE’RE ON OUR LUNCH BREAK, COME BACK NEXT TIME”.

In medical institutions, Alexander and Michael explain, often if a person says they are HIV positive, they are sent to the back of the queue. This is such a small discrimination. They won’t refuse to help, but they will accept him last – to disinfect everything afterwards. This is despite the fact that disposable instruments are used or everything is disinfected after each patient.

– Generally, health workers have instructions to suspect every patient is HIV and hepatitis C positive, to wear gloves and masks in every situation. But when funding is a problem, gloves can be wiped down with alcohol or something else cannot be done.

– And sometimes there is just a flood of patients, and it’s just the human factor.

– But if there is a risk of disease, health workers are immediately put on PEP – free post-exposure prophylaxis. This equates to an occupational injury,” Mikhail sums it up.

But legal recourse is not limited to medical issues either. People who are HIV-positive are increasingly facing blackmail.

– Either a former cohabitant or a former spouse blackmails them,” explains Alexander. – They start threatening that, for example, they will disclose their status to their relatives.

– Can this be dealt with?

– If a person fears it, they can go and write a statement to the police, because it is an invasion of privacy. Such reports are obligatory because we have a Criminal Code. The report will first be investigated, one party will be called, and then the other party will be called. Maybe at this stage the blackmailer will realise that he is doing it for nothing. Sometimes blackmail is attempted by people who are already HIV-positive themselves.

– Maybe both of them were already infected when they met and were afraid to tell each other. We are all afraid,” says Mikhail. – This goes to the issue of self-stigma caused by stigmatization from society. The further into the woods it gets, the harder it becomes to tell your partner. I recently had a consultation: we talked on the phone for an hour and a half (we didn’t have an office at the time). A guy “plus” (tested positive), he has a regular partner who is HIV-negative. The client says: “I know everything, I understand everything, I understand that people live with it, and the story with the pills does not embarrass me.

“BUT HOW DO I TELL HIM? I DON’T WANT TO LOSE HIM, AND I’M AFRAID TO TELL HIM.

This is the self-stigma that emerges thanks to our beloved public, which still believes that HIV infection is collapse and death.

The situation is even more difficult when an HIV-positive person is a citizen of another country. One can avoid deportation only if one has close relatives or a spouse with Russian citizenship. The amendments about relatives, which make life a little easier for foreigners, have only recently appeared and do not always help.

– In one case, I had to file a lawsuit in Moscow against Rospotrebnadzor,” says Alexander. – A Ukrainian citizen has entered Russia. His wife is Russian. The court overturned Rospotrebnadzor’s decision that his stay on Russian territory was undesirable. The man’s wife recently called and said that he had to renew or get a new residence permit, but the police were refusing him on the grounds of his HIV status. They demand a certificate from the AIDS Centre that he is registered there and the AIDS Centre says: “We won’t take him on the register because he is a foreign citizen. All the same, there are legal obstacles.

– And if there are no close relatives who are citizens of the Russian Federation?

– A foreigner is subject to deportation. In the CIS, only two states still deport citizens with HIV: Russia and Armenia. The others have acknowledged that it is not dangerous, and the foreigner himself, knowing that he has HIV, runs to the nearest AIDS centre and gets registered there to receive therapy for money, because he himself is interested in it, because then he will have a normal life, work and finances to support himself.

– It is scary to think about the level of stigma faced by migrants with HIV. Where does this rejection of HIV-positive people, migrants and Russians come from? From ignorance?

– Now there is a lot of information, organizations, websites, information space has expanded. People can find and read everything themselves. But who is interested in it? The target group, people who have already become HIV carriers,” says Alexander.

– Stigma is associated primarily with a complete lack of awareness about this or that disease,” says Mikhail. – I have a number of acquaintances who still think that HIV can be contracted by drinking from the same cup. Speedophobia, or HIV-phobia, comes primarily from ignorance. Sexual transmission of HIV is now the predominant mode of transmission. HIV has long gone beyond the so-called key populations: injecting drug users, MSM (men who have sex with men), sex workers and sex workers. It has long entered the heterosexual field, socially adapted, with wives, husbands, families. At some point, people get tested because they feel bad: “Oh, we have HIV. Unexpectedly. There was a case when a young man – married, two children – went to hospital. He was brought by ambulance but he could not walk: he had terminal AIDS. Thanks to our Botkin doctors, who sometimes help out patients even in a very serious condition.

– But that is if there are no concomitant diseases,” adds Alexander. – But if a person has tuberculosis … At first, tuberculosis should be staved off, but as long as tuberculosis is being treated, there is no one left to treat HIV.

– Are there still a lot of HIV-dissidents?

Both my interlocutors nod. They say that a year ago, Russia started shutting down AIDS dissident websites that were writing about HIV being allegedly a conspiracy of pharmaceutical companies, and a number of NGOs addressed the State Duma with a proposal to introduce criminal punishment for AIDS dissidence. But fake information about HIV is still plentiful and it still leads to tragedies.

– The last high-profile case was in Krasnoyarsk in early summer,” says Alexander. – A little girl died there. The child was taken away from her mother, who was HIV-positive, and given to her grandmother, who also turned out to be a dissident. HIV infection has existed for so many years, there are already medical achievements, therapy, people live with it. The government gives you pills for free! Your task is just to take them at a certain time. That’s all. And live your life as you live it. Okay, if you had money taken out of your pocket you could say that it’s a conspiracy of pharmaceutical companies, but here the state takes all of it. What kind of conspiracy is that?

Mikhail points out that in St. Petersburg, the percentage of people who are registered and take therapy, thank God, is growing. But there is data that the incidence of the disease is also increasing, including among teenagers.

– So what to do about it?

– If we want to stop the growth of the infection in the general population, we have to forget about what we are told every day – about ‘crosses’, that there is no sex before marriage,” says Alexander. – It’s better to remove VAT from condoms, put condom machines in student dormitories for free distribution, certify female condoms. Elementary! Then the incidence of disease will go down. Let us at least introduce sex education in high schools, when hormones are kicking in. But no, we’re sitting here discussing television: “I got pregnant at 15. Oh, how did that happen?” And, again, our legislation: the age of consent is 16 and you can only talk about sex from the age of 18.

– That doesn’t mean we want to show pornographic films in school. We should at least tell them that they need to use condoms, and it’s not even about pregnancy, it’s about protecting yourself and your partner,” says Mikhail. – Of course, you have to somehow control who and what you say to immature minds. But now everything is so framed, you have to go through so many certifications to get into the same university. We are already silent about the school. And the university also has to make an application, select a specialist, and the specialist has to confirm his or her qualifications. Previously, universities used to invite NPOs in the areas they were interested in, but now this is practically non-existent.

Before the legislative changes, the rectors of universities often approached Positive Dialogue with requests to give lectures, tell them what HIV is and how to protect themselves from infection, and let them distribute condoms to those who wished to do so. Now all this is a thing of the past.

Mikhail says higher education institutions and teenage and youth centres under district administrations still have a prevention plan. But due to the new laws, the topic of sex may have to be circumvented. It is difficult for specialists to imagine how, especially taking into account that now HIV is sexually transmitted in the overwhelming majority of cases.

– Concerning access to preventive measures of HIV infection: the cheapest condoms cost 50 rubles for three pieces, but their quality leaves much to be desired. The simplest classic condom, which will not fit everyone’s size, is already 150 rubles for three pieces,” says Mikhail. – So what’s a student to do? Fortunately, we are able to replenish our stock and periodically hand out condoms with lubricant for free. It’s important that people get used to not getting it all for free, but to using a condom as such. Yes, there is pre-exposure and post-exposure HIV prevention (special pills that can be taken before or after potentially dangerous sexual contact), but there is still nothing better than a condom at this stage against HIV infection. Pre-exposure prophylaxis is very good, very right, but it does not protect against hepatitis, syphilis and other sexually transmitted infections.

Alexander recalls how Positive Dialogue had a joint project with a Swedish aid organisation many years ago. Colleagues told us that when HIV infection first appeared and became widely discussed, the reaction to people who were positive in Sweden was also harsh. For example, a car owned by an HIV-positive person could be sent straight to a landfill. Now, however, the situations are dramatically different in our countries. In Sweden and other European countries, sex education and all types of prevention, condoms are available and their use is encouraged. In Russia, there is an HIV epidemic, but neither sex education nor prevention is available to the extent needed.

– Prevention programmes in our country are underfunded,” says Mikhail. – But the process is necessary and it has to go on. The official statistics of St. Petersburg Committee on health protection says that there are supposedly only 10 thousand MSM in our six million citizens city. The official statistics on the incidence of disease among MSM is also understated.

Although HIV infection has long ceased to be a disease of exclusively key groups, it is still necessary to work with them and they need a special approach. But underreporting complicates the task, admits Mikhail.

Despite the fact that there are quite a few places in St. Petersburg where you can get anonymous rapid HIV testing, and the new office of Positive Dialogue has only recently opened, people already come here every day. The most recent clients include a couple starting life together and a young man who had a “risky situation”. Fortunately, all the tests were negative. But people who have just found out they are HIV-positive often come too.

Mikhail regrets that Positive Dialogue does not currently have the resources to provide fully qualified psychological help. “Psychological enquiries are coming in sporadically, but so far we have to work in peer counselling mode or refer them to partner support organisations.

– Everything comes down to money,” Mikhail explains. – The help of a competent professional psychologist is not cheap. And you need a whole staff here: the topic is not simple, it involves a lot of experience and different life situations. The specialists themselves are susceptible to burnout, there should be interchangeability, so that a person could be told: “Go for a walk for two weeks, so that no one touches you. Take care of the house, the garden, the garden”. There are situations that are more affecting to whom: to the person who asked for help or to the person who helps. Sometimes the stories are very difficult, especially when it is a newly discovered case. There are so many problems, you understand that they can be solved, but it takes time, you have to go through the stages of acceptance, especially the first and second stages, shock, anger, denial…

Positive Dialogue has literally only a handful of private donations, although the button on the website has been running since 2018. Getting the message across to a wider audience about how important it is to help people with HIV, that anyone of us can become a person with HIV, is very difficult. Grants and fundraising for individual projects help keep the organization going. Now, thanks to the EECA Fund for Operational Assistance to Key Populations of the region, we have managed to find and pay for new premises. In addition to assistance, it is necessary to engage in prevention, purchase and distribute condoms, buy test kits, ideally conduct seminars on adherence to healthy lifestyle and support groups for people with HIV with participation of medical consultants. Positive Dialogue once held lectures on HIV and the law even for doctors at a military medical hospital. The need for dialogue with doctors has not disappeared, but it has become much more difficult to organise such communication.

– As long as HIV doesn’t affect you personally, you stay out of it,” says Mikhail. – But if it has already touched you, you come running with goggling eyes: “Dear God, how can you live further? And it’s even better if a person runs here and not to the river embankment.

Over the past six years alone, Positive Dialogue has reached more than 31,500 people with its HIV prevention programmes. How many people it has helped in difficult situations is incalculable.

Positive Dialogue needs support to be able to fully assist all those in need. Any donation you can make will bring closer the time when the organisation will again have a full-time psychologist and perhaps support someone close to you. The organisation needs money for legal advice to help people who have been harassed at work, blackmailed or tried to leave the country. To do prevention work. So that the words “HIV is not a sentence” are not just words. So that the dialogue between different people, with all their advantages and disadvantages, can remain positive. Please support this organization. We all need it.


Слишком экстремальная помощь. Кто и как защищает людей с ВИЧ в Санкт-Петербурге

Стигматизация, отказ в оказании медицинских услуг, увольнение, депортация — вот лишь некоторые проблемы, с которыми могут столкнуться ВИЧ-инфицированные люди в России. Решать эти проблемы уже 25 лет помогают сотрудники общественной организации «Позитивный диалог»

Тихая улочка в центре Петербурга, двор с ярким граффити — портретом девушки с длинными волосами и текстом Lu Blue. Больше пока никаких надписей.

Михаил Ступишин, руководитель «Позитивного диалога», встречает меня у двери. Несколько ступенек вниз, и мы в светлом кабинете. В это помещение «Позитивный диалог» въехал совсем недавно, до этого организация годами располагалась на территории инфекционной Боткинской больницы.

— Первая четверть XXI века заканчивается, а люди до сих пор с ВИЧ-фобными тараканами в голове, — смеется Михаил, наливая кофе и рассказывая о переезде. — В четырех помещениях нам отказали в связи с родом нашей деятельности. На предварительном просмотре мы объясняли, что нацелены сейчас на индивидуальное консультирование, а не на массовые мероприятия, говорили, что поток клиентов у нас есть, но не как в мавзолей, что мы работаем с социально значимым заболеванием — с ВИЧ-инфекцией. Нам отвечали: «Да-да-да, все замечательно». А когда дело дошло до заключения договора, сказали: «Мы посмотрели на сайте, чем вы занимаетесь. Для нас это слишком экстремально».

Я вспоминаю Анну, героиню моего текста «Анна и ее победы», подопечную «Позитивного диалога». Вот уж что экстремально, так это отношение, с которым она и многие другие люди то и дело сталкиваются из-за ВИЧ-положительного статуса. Например, когда собственная мать, опытный медработник, заставляет дочку есть из отдельной посуды, хотя контактно-бытового способа передачи ВИЧ не существует. Или когда человека не хотят брать на работу из-за ВИЧ-статуса, несмотря на то, что благодаря терапии (бесплатной и доступной) у него уже давно неопределяемая вирусная нагрузка — это значит, что он вообще никак не может никого заразить. Анна рассказывала, что в самых отчаянных жизненных ситуациях звонила в «Позитивный диалог» и благодаря разговору с юристом Александром Лозой не раз решала проблемы с работой, а потом и с учебой.

Александр присоединяется к нам с Михаилом, мы пожимаем друг другу руки и начинаем разговор, который длится больше двух часов, но даже этого времени кажется мало. Проблем, с которыми сталкиваются люди с ВИЧ в России, слишком много.

«Позитивный диалог» начался аж 25 лет назад. Основал его юрист, один из первых зарегистрированных ВИЧ-положительных людей в СССР Николай Панченко. Недавно он отметил 70-летний юбилей, а несколько лет назад передал руководство организации Михаилу Ступишину, но в разговоре имя Панченко то и дело звучит — именно он начал просветительскую работу, рассказывая о профилактике и жизни с ВИЧ. Сейчас делать это так же необходимо, как и четверть века тому назад.

— Саша здесь с 2004 года работает, а я в 2015 году пришел, — рассказывает Михаил. — Тогда начали реализовываться два больших профилактических проекта: профилактика ВИЧ среди мужчин, практикующих секс с мужчинами, и профилактика ВИЧ-инфекции среди секс-работниц. Я пришел по рекомендации знакомого. У меня среднее медобразование. Я не врач, а средний медработник. Анатомию хорошо знаю, патофизиологию хорошо знаю или, по крайней мере, знал, понимаю, откуда какие ноги растут.

Вдобавок к медицинскому образованию Михаил окончил университет культуры, а Александр учился в Санкт-Петербургском государственном университете. Медик и юрист, у обоих большой опыт работы с людьми в сложных жизненных ситуациях.

— Юридическая консультация многим нужна, — говорит Александр. — Не у всех есть деньги на платную консультацию, не все хотят рассказывать о своих специфических проблемах, и не все юристы в этом практикуются.

— Наверное, часто обращаются по вопросам, связанным с работой? — спрашиваю я. Но все оказывается не совсем так, как я себе представляла.

По словам Александра, чаще всего боятся быть уволенными медицинские работники, которые должны ежегодно сдавать обязательные анализы, в том числе на ВИЧ. Но за консультациями обращаются и сотрудники полиции, МЧС: вопреки федеральному законодательству, в этих ведомствах вводят полный запрет на работу для ВИЧ-положительных людей — выпускают локальные акты о прохождении медосмотра и признают негодными или ограниченно годными к службе.

— В таких ситуациях можно что-то сделать?

— Ну вот еще в советское время был принят акт о том, что люди с ВИЧ-инфекцией не могут быть командирами воздушных судов, — Александр вздыхает. — Лет пять или семь назад у одного капитана выявили ВИЧ. Он обратился в Генеральную прокуратуру, Генеральная прокуратура пошла в Верховный суд, и Верховный суд признал этот акт незаконным. Но человек должен был раскрыть перед всеми свой статус. Дело не в суде как таковом — в документах фамилия человека может быть скрыта. Но работодатель зачастую давит на сотрудника, может распространять о нем слухи.

Михаил приводит в пример историю своего знакомого, которого буквально «съели» на работе, в самом обычном офисе, узнав о его ВИЧ-статусе. Судиться в таких ситуациях может быть бесполезно: с юридической точки зрения дело беспроигрышное — увольнение незаконное, но жизни на работе не дадут.

В суд против работодателя люди идут редко, и, как правило, это резонансные дела, которые меняют локальные нормативные акты организации.

— У нас записано в законодательстве, что это дискриминация, что работодатель будет оштрафован, есть уголовная ответственность, — говорит Александр. — Но все это стараются сделать по-тихому: ты уволишься по собственному желанию, тебе выплатят какое-то выходное пособие, и ты уйдешь спокойно (что с тобой будет дальше — твои проблемы), а мы будем белые и пушистые. Я всегда говорю, что борьба за свои права чревата: могут создать такие условия, что человек будет просто вынужден уйти. Постоянный стресс ведь тоже плохо влияет на организм.

В прошлом году, по словам Александра, локальный акт о запрете работы людям с ВИЧ пыталась издать Генеральная прокуратура, но поднялся шум, и ведомству пришлось отказаться от этой идеи. А вот у Министерства путей и сообщения, похоже, ввести локальный запрет получилось.

— В общем, если начинаются проблемы на работе из-за ВИЧ-статуса, единственный выход — искать нормального работодателя?

— У нас «нормального работодателя» как такового нет, — качает головой Александр.

— Тут дело не столько в работодателе, — добавляет Михаил, — сколько в твоем непосредственном руководителе или в высшем руководстве, если речь о его позиции.

Он рассказывает о случаях, когда при приеме на работу у людей без их ведома брали тест на ВИЧ. Практика эта, конечно, незаконная:

— Вопрос с информированием о статусе человека вообще стоит очень жестко: никакого разглашения, только по официальному запросу суда или прокуратуры. Только тогда Центр СПИД обязан предоставить информацию, состоит этот человек на учете или не состоит. Если человек понимает, что никому о своем статусе не говорил, а информация у работодателя появилась, значит попутно, при прохождении медкомиссии, кровь взяли на ВИЧ-инфекцию. Но, по идее, дальнейших телодвижений работодатель делать не может, потому что вся эта история незаконна.

— А еще с какими проблемами обращаются?

— Доступ к медицинским услугам, — ни секунды не раздумывая, отвечает Александр. — Бывает, что человеку предстоит плановая операция, он знает, что он ВИЧ-инфицированный, а в медицинском учреждении его пытаются либо отговорить, либо перенаправить еще куда-нибудь, либо просто положить в платное отделение, хотя для него все должно быть бесплатно по ОМС.

— Пытаются либо деньги содрать, либо вообще отказаться от него, потому что ВИЧ-статус, — обходится без эвфемизмов Михаил.

— Напрямую этого никто не говорит, начинается различная медицинская терминология либо «показания у вас какие-то не те, давайте, может, через годик». В медицинских учреждениях мы всегда рекомендуем просить письменный отказ. То, что врач говорит в коридоре, вы потом нигде никому не сможете доказать. Врач понимает, что, написав такой отказ, подставит сам себя и свое медучреждение. И тогда врачи скорее наденут двойные перчатки и все сделают, скрипя зубами, — уверен Александр.

— И сделают по возможности качественно, чтобы больше не приходил, — смеется Михаил.

— При этом к гепатиту С, который опаснее, все гораздо проще относятся, — недоумевает Александр. — Если сказать дантистам, что у вас гепатит С, врачи отнесутся к этому легче, чем если сказать про ВИЧ.

СКАЖЕТЕ ПРО ВИЧ — НАВЕРНЯКА УСЛЫШИТЕ: «НЕ-НЕ-НЕ, У НАС ОБЕДЕННЫЙ ПЕРЕРЫВ, В СЛЕДУЮЩИЙ РАЗ ПРИХОДИТЕ»

В медицинских учреждениях, поясняют Александр с Михаилом, зачастую, если человек говорит о своем положительном ВИЧ-статусе, его отсылают в конец очереди. Такая маленькая дискриминация. В помощи не откажут, но примут последним — чтобы после все продезинфицировать. Это притом, что используются одноразовые инструменты или же после каждого пациента все дезинфицируется.

— Вообще у медработников есть инструкции, по которым они в каждом пациенте обязаны подозревать ВИЧ-инфицированного и больного гепатитом С, надевать перчатки и маски в любой ситуации. Но, когда с финансированием проблемы, и перчатки можно спиртом протереть, и еще что-то не сделать.

— А иногда просто идет поток пациентов, и срабатывает просто человеческий фактор.

— Но, если есть риски заболевания, медработников сразу сажают на ПКП — бесплатную постконтактную профилактику. Это приравнивается к производственной травме, — подводит итог Михаил.

Но и медицинскими вопросами юридические обращения не исчерпываются. Люди с положительным ВИЧ-статусом все чаще сталкиваются с шантажом.

— Шантажирует либо бывший сожитель/сожительница, либо бывший супруг/супруга, — поясняет Александр. — Начинают угрожать, что, например, раскроют статус родственникам.

— А с этим можно бороться?

— Если человек опасается этого, он может пойти и написать заявление в полицию, потому что это вмешательство в частную жизнь. Такие заявления обязаны принять, поскольку у нас есть Уголовный кодекс. По заявлению сначала будет проводиться проверка, вызовут одну сторону, потом — вторую. Может быть, на этой стадии шантажирующий человек уже поймет, что зря это делает. Иногда шантажировать пытаются люди, которые сами уже ВИЧ-инфицированы.

— Может быть, оба уже были инфицированы, когда встретились, и боялись друг другу сказать. Мы все боимся, — говорит Михаил. — Это уже к вопросу о самостигматизации, вызванной стигматизацией со стороны общества. Чем дальше в лес, тем сказать партнеру становится сложнее. Недавно у меня была консультация — мы полтора часа проговорили по телефону (у нас в тот момент не было офиса). Парень «плюсанул» (тест оказался положительным), у него есть постоянный партнер, ВИЧ-отрицательный. Клиент говорит: «Я все знаю, все понимаю, понимаю, что с этим живут, и история с таблетками меня не смущает».

«НО КАК Я ЕМУ СКАЖУ? Я И ТЕРЯТЬ ЕГО НЕ ХОЧУ, И БОЮСЬ СКАЗАТЬ»

Вот эта самостигма появляется благодаря нашей любимой общественности, которая до сих пор считает, что ВИЧ-инфекция — это крах и смерть.

Еще сложнее ситуация, когда ВИЧ-положительный человек — гражданин другого государства. Избежать депортации можно только при наличии близких родственников или супруга/супруги с российским гражданством. Да и поправки про родственников, несколько облегчающие иностранцам жизнь, появились лишь недавно и помогают не всегда.

— По одному случаю пришлось подавать в суд в Москве против Роспотребнадзора, — рассказывает Александр. — Гражданин Украины въехал в Россию. Жена у него россиянка. Суд отменил решение Роспотребнадзора о нежелательности пребывания на территории РФ. Недавно звонила супруга того человека, сказала, что ему нужно продлевать или получать новый вид на жительство, а полиция ему на основании ВИЧ-статуса отказывает. Требуют справку от Центра СПИД о том, что он состоит там на учете, а в Центре СПИД говорят: «Мы не возьмем его на учет, потому что он иностранный гражданин». Все равно возникают юридические препоны.

— А если нет близких родственников — граждан РФ?

— Иностранец подлежит депортации. На территории СНГ только два государства все еще депортируют граждан с ВИЧ: Россия и Армения. Остальные признали, что это неопасно, да и иностранец сам, зная о том, что у него ВИЧ, бежит в ближайший Центр СПИД и встает там на учет, чтобы получать терапию за деньги, потому что он сам в этом заинтересован, потому что тогда у него будет нормальная жизнь, работа и финансы, чтобы себя содержать.

— О том, с каким уровнем стигматизации могут сталкиваться мигранты с ВИЧ, даже думать страшно. Откуда вообще такое неприятие ВИЧ-положительных людей, мигрантов и россиян? От невежества?

— Сейчас очень много информации, организаций, сайтов, информационное пространство очень расширилось. Люди сами могут все найти и прочитать. Но кто этим интересуется? Целевая группа, люди, которые уже стали носителями ВИЧ, — рассуждает Александр.

— Стигматизация связана в первую очередь с кромешной неосведомленностью о том или ином заболевании, — уверен Михаил. — У меня есть ряд знакомых, которые до сих пор думают, что ВИЧ-инфекцией можно заразиться, испив из одной чашки. Спидофобия, или ВИЧ-фобия, идет в первую очередь от неосведомленности. Сейчас половой способ передачи ВИЧ преобладает. ВИЧ-инфекция уже давным-давно вышла за пределы так называемых ключевых групп: потребителей инъекционных наркотиков, МСМ (мужчин, практикующих секс с мужчинами. — Прим. ТД), секс-работников и секс-работниц. Она уже давно вышла в гетеросексуальное поле, социально адаптированное, с женами, мужьями, семьями. В какой-то момент люди сдают анализы, потому что им плохо: «Ой, у нас ВИЧ-инфекция». Неожиданно. Был случай, когда в больницу попал молодой мужчина — женат, двое детей. Его привезли на скорой, он не мог ходить — СПИД, терминальная стадия. Спасибо нашим боткинским врачам, которые иногда вытягивают пациентов даже в очень тяжелом состоянии.

— Но это если нет сопутствующих заболеваний, — дополняет Александр. — А если у человека туберкулез… Сначала надо «забить» туберкулез, но, пока лечат туберкулез, уже и лечить от ВИЧ становится некого.

— А ВИЧ-диссидентов по-прежнему много?

Оба моих собеседника кивают. Говорят, что год назад в России стали закрывать сайты СПИД-диссидентов, писавших о том, что ВИЧ — это якобы заговор фармкомпаний, а ряд общественных организаций обратились в Госдуму с предложением ввести уголовное наказание за СПИД-диссидентство. Но фейковой информации о ВИЧ по-прежнему много, и это по-прежнему приводит к трагедиям.

— Последний резонансный случай был в Красноярске в начале лета, — говорит Александр. — Там умерла маленькая девочка. У мамы, ВИЧ-диссидентки, отняли ребенка, передали бабушке, а та тоже оказалась диссиденткой. ВИЧ-инфекция существует уже столько лет, уже есть достижения медицинские, терапия, люди с ней живут. Вам государство бесплатно дает таблетки! Ваша задача — просто их принять в определенное время. Всё. И живите как живете. Ладно если бы у тебя из кармана вынимали деньги, ты мог бы сказать, что это заговор фармкомпаний, но здесь-то государство все берет на себя. Какой тут заговор?

Михаил отмечает, что в Петербурге процент людей, состоящих на учете и принимающих терапию, слава богу, растет. Но есть данные, что и заболеваемость тоже растет, в том числе в подростковой среде.

— И что с этим делать?

— Если мы хотим остановить рост инфекции в общей популяции, мы должны забыть о том, о чем нам каждый день говорят, — о «скрепах», о том, что нет никакого секса до брака, — говорит Александр. — Лучше уберите НДС с презервативов, поставьте в студенческих общежитиях кондоматы для бесплатной их раздачи, сертифицируйте женские презервативы. Элементарно! Тогда пойдет снижение заболеваемости. Давайте хотя бы в старших классах вводить сексуальное просвещение, когда гормоны вовсю идут. Но нет, сидим, обсуждаем телевизор: «Забеременела в 15 лет. Ах, как же это случилось?» И, опять-таки, наше законодательство: возраст согласия — с 16 лет, а разговаривать о сексе можно только с 18 лет.

— Это не значит, что мы хотим показывать в школе порнографические фильмы. Надо рассказывать хотя бы, что нужно использовать презервативы, и дело даже не в беременности, а в том, что нужно обезопасить себя и своего партнера, — говорит Михаил. — Конечно, каким-то образом нужно контролировать, кто и что будет глаголать неокрепшим умам. Но теперь все поставлено в такие рамки, нужно пройти столько сертификаций, чтобы прийти в тот же вуз. Про школу мы уже вообще молчим. И вуз тоже должен сделать заявку, подобрать специалиста, а специалист должен подтвердить свою квалификацию. Раньше вузы приглашали НКО по тем направлениям, которые их интересуют, теперь этого практически не происходит.

До законодательных новшеств в «Позитивный диалог» нередко обращались ректораты вузов: просили провести лекции, рассказать о том, что такое ВИЧ, как предохраняться от инфекции, позволяли раздавать презервативы желающим. Сейчас все это осталось в прошлом.

Михаил говорит, что у вузов и подростково-молодежных центров при районных администрациях по-прежнему есть план профилактических мероприятий. Но в связи с новыми законами тему секса, видимо, придется обходить. Как — представить специалистам сложно, особенно учитывая, что сейчас ВИЧ в подавляющем большинстве случаев передается именно половым путем.

— К вопросу о доступе к профилактическим мерам по ВИЧ-инфекции: у нас самые дешевые презервативы стоят 50 рублей за три штуки, но качество у них оставляет желать лучшего. Простейший классический презерватив, который не всем подойдет по размеру, — уже 150 рублей за три штуки, — говорит Михаил. — И что делать тому же самому студенту? У нас, к счастью, есть возможность пополнять запас и периодически раздавать презервативы с лубрикантами бесплатно. Важно, чтобы люди привыкли не к тому, чтобы получать это все бесплатно, а к использованию презерватива как такового. Да, есть доконтактная и постконтактная профилактика ВИЧ (специальные таблетки, которые можно принять до или после потенциально опасного сексуального контакта), но все равно лучше презерватива на данном этапе против ВИЧ-инфекции ничего не придумали. Доконтактная профилактика — это очень хорошо, очень правильно, но от гепатитов, сифилиса и других инфекций, передающихся половым путем, она не защищает.

Александр вспоминает, как много лет назад у «Позитивного диалога» был совместный проект со шведской помогающей организацией. Коллеги рассказывали, что, когда ВИЧ-инфекция только появилась и стала широко обсуждаться, реакция на людей с положительным статусом в Швеции тоже была жесткой. Например, автомобиль, который принадлежал ВИЧ-положительному человеку, могли отправить прямиком на свалку. Зато сейчас ситуации в наших странах различаются кардинально. В Швеции, да и в других европейских странах, доступны секс-просвещение и все виды профилактики, презервативы, их использование поощряется. В России эпидемия ВИЧ — при этом нет ни секс-просвещения, ни профилактики в нужном объеме.

— У нас программы профилактики мало финансируются, — говорит Михаил. — А процесс нужен, он должен идти. Вот официальная статистика нашего петербургского комитета по здравоохранению: на наш шестимиллионный город якобы всего 10 тысяч МСМ. Официальная статистика по заболеваемости среди МСМ тоже занижена.

Хотя ВИЧ-инфекция уже давно перестала быть болезнью исключительно ключевых групп, работать с ними по-прежнему нужно, им необходим особый подход. Но заниженная статистика серьезно усложняет задачу, признается Михаил.

Несмотря на то что в Петербурге немало мест, где можно анонимно пройти экспресс-тестирование на ВИЧ, и новый офис «Позитивного диалога» работает совсем недавно, сюда уже приходят каждый день. Из последних клиентов — пара, начинающая совместную жизнь, и молодой человек, у которого произошла «рискованная ситуация». К счастью, все тесты оказались отрицательными. Но часто обращаются и люди, только что узнавшие о положительном ВИЧ-статусе.

Михаил сожалеет, что сейчас у «Позитивного диалога» нет ресурсов для того, чтобы оказывать полноценную квалифицированную психологическую помощь. «Психологические» обращения идут через раз, но пока работать приходится в режиме равного консультирования или перенаправлять в партнерские помогающие организации.

— Все упирается в деньги, — поясняет Михаил. — Помощь грамотного профессионального психолога стоит недешево. Да и здесь нужен целый штат: тема непростая, связана с большими переживаниями, разными жизненными ситуациями. Сами специалисты подвержены выгоранию, здесь должна быть взаимозаменяемость, чтобы человеку можно было сказать: «Иди погуляй недели две, чтобы тебя никто не трогал. Занимайся домом, садом, огородом». Бывают ситуации, которые даже непонятно на кого сильнее действуют: на человека, который обратился за помощью, или на человека, который помогает. Иногда истории очень сложные, особенно когда это вновь выявленный случай. На тебя вываливается столько проблем, понимаешь, что их можно решить, но нужно время, нужно пройти стадии принятия, особенно первую и вторую, шок, гнев, отрицание…

Частных пожертвований у «Позитивного диалога» буквально единицы, хотя кнопка на сайте работает с 2018 года. Донести до широкой аудитории мысль о том, как важно помогать людям с ВИЧ, о том, что человеком с ВИЧ может стать любой из нас, очень сложно. Держаться организации помогают гранты, привлечение финансов на отдельные проекты. Вот сейчас найти и оплатить новое помещение получилось благодаря Фонду оперативной помощи ключевым группам населения региона ВЕЦА. А, помимо помощи, нужно заниматься и профилактикой, закупать и распространять презервативы, закупать тест-системы, в идеале еще проводить семинары по приверженности здоровому образу жизни, группы поддержки для людей с ВИЧ с участием медицинских консультантов. Когда-то «Позитивный диалог» проводил лекции по теме «ВИЧ и право» даже для врачей военно-медицинского госпиталя. Потребность в диалоге с врачами никуда не делась, только организовать такое общение стало гораздо сложнее.

— Пока ВИЧ не касается тебя лично, ты в это дело не лезешь, — говорит Михаил. — А если уже коснулось, то прибегаешь с выпученными глазами: «Боже-боже, как жить дальше?» И это еще хорошо, если человек сюда прибегает, а не на набережную реки.

Только за последние шесть лет работы «Позитивный диалог» охватил своими программами профилактики ВИЧ более 31,5 тысячи человек. Скольким людям он помог в трудной ситуации, подсчету не поддается.

Чтобы полноценно оказывать помощь всем, кто в ней нуждается, «Позитивному диалогу» нужна поддержка. Любое посильное пожертвование приблизит то время, когда в организации снова появится штатный психолог и, возможно, поддержит близкого вам человека. Организации нужны деньги на юридические консультации, чтобы помогать людям, которых притесняют на работе, шантажируют или пытаются выслать из страны. Чтобы вести профилактическую работу. Чтобы слова «ВИЧ — не приговор» были не просто словами. Чтобы диалог между самыми разными людьми со всеми их плюсами и минусами оставался все-таки позитивным. Пожалуйста, поддержите эту организацию. Она нужна нам всем.