Analysis: How is Russia’s HIV-specific law being used to prosecute women living with HIV?

(For Russian version, please, scroll down)

At the beginning of 2016, a military officer from Moscow discovered that he was HIV-positive during routine testing. Later, his wife Natalia, who had tested positive for HIV several years ago, admitted that she had been afraid to disclose her HIV-positive status because she feared violent reprisals from her husband. The officer went to the police to commence criminal proceedings against Natalia, and the investigation continues. The media – as in most countries, our only source of information on cases like this – has not yet provided much more information about the case, so we do not know how long Natalia was forced to hide her HIV-positive status from her husband because of fear of violence.

This is not the only case started against a woman for alleged HIV transmission in 2016.

In January, 24-year-old Nadezhda, who lives in the Amur Oblast in the Russian Far East, was found guilty of charges of alleged HIV transmission to three men, under part 1, Art. 122, and part 3, Art. 122 of the Criminal Code (‘infecting others with HIV, knowing about the presence of this disease). She was sentenced to four years in a penal colony. Nadezhda appealed the verdict, but the panel of judges upheld both the verdict and her sentence.

More recently, in the summer of 2016, a 33-year-old woman from Bryansk, 379 kilometers southwest of Moscow, was prosecuted for allegedly infecting her male partner with HIV. The court used evidence that she was registered at an AIDS centre since 2007 against her, since she met the man in 2014. However, the court was relatively lenient, and she was given a three year suspended sentence followed by a three year probation period. In addition, consistent with best practice, her name was not disclosed in the media, in contrast to Nadezhda’s whose name was published in the news release by the Press Service of the Prosecutor’s Office.

At AIDS 2016 in Durban last month, the HIV Justice Network revealed new data showing that Russia now tops the global HIV criminalisation league table. We found reports of at least 115 arrests, prosecutions and/or convictions in Russia during the 30-month period: April 2013 to October 2015.

We have now collected eleven stories from the Russian media about women convicted under Article 122.

Since 2007, at least three of these women were sentenced to more than four years in prison for alleged HIV transmission to one or more partners. Another woman received a sentence of one year, seven months in prison, and a further two women had a suspended one-year and three-year sentence. In one case the court gave a 20 year-old woman 6-month’s probation. Verdicts for three cases are unknown.

It not just alleged HIV transmission that is being prosecuted; we also know of a 2013 case of a woman from the town of Kungur in the Perm Oblast, who was sentenced to spend one year and three months in a penal colony for potential or perceived HIV exposure: her partner was not infected.

Of particular concern is that in all of the above cases, evidence of prior knowledge of HIV-positive status came from medical records. In Russia, each newly-diagnosed person must sign an informed consent form indicating that he or she is informed of their potential criminal liability under Article 122 for HIV exposure and transmission. This informed consent is attached to their medical history, ready for an official request.

Furthermore, in cases of alleged HIV transmission, the public prosecutor did not adequately investigate the causal link between the accused and the complainant, because there is no test that can establish the timing and direction of transmission without any doubt. It is possible, for example, that some of the male complainants were infected before they had relationships with their female partners and before they themselves were diagnosed HIV-positive.

Article 122 was introduced into the Criminal Code, in particular, to protect women from HIV infection, but it is clear from our research that the law has been applied against women in Russia.

There are many reasons why women are vulnerable when HIV criminalisation intersects with gender inequality and violence. These include, but are not limited to, the following:

Women often do not make decisions about when to have sex, with whom, and whether or not to use condoms.
Women are often economically dependent on their partner, which increases the inequality in their relationships.
Unfortunately, there is evidence that intimate partner violence often occurs when a woman discloses her HIV status.
Fear of prosecution prevents women from getting tested, knowing their status, and getting HIV treatment, because many laws are applied precisely against those who know about their diagnosis.

There is a hope that shedding light on what is going on in Russia will help mobilize people around these unjust prosecutions. As new cases emerge we will continue to report on them on the HIV Justice Network website.

Evgenia Maron is the HIV Justice Network’s EECA Consultant

В начале 2016 года военный из Москвы во время регулярного обследования обнаружил, что инфицирован ВИЧ . Позднее его жена Наталья, которая получила положительный результат на ВИЧ за несколько лет до этого, пояснила, что боялась рассказать о своем ВИЧ-позитивном статусе из-за страха насилия и возмездия со стороны своего мужа. Военный обратился в полицию, чтобы возбудить дело против Натальи, расследование продолжается. СМИ – во многих странах наш единственный источник информации о таких делах, как это, – не дают много данных об этом деле, поэтому мы не знаем, сколько лет Наталья вынуждена была скрывать свой ВИЧ-позитивный статус от мужа из-за страха насилия.

Это не единственное дело против женщин за передачу ВИЧ-инфекции в 2016 году.

В январе 24-летняя Надежда, которая живет в Амурской области на Российском Дальнем Востоке, была признана виновной в передаче ВИЧ трем мужчинам по части 1 ст. 122 и части 3 ст. 122 Уголовного Кодекса (“заражение другого лица ВИЧ-инфекцией лицом, знавшим о наличии данного заболевания”). Ей было назначено наказание в виде четырех лет лишения свободы с отбыванием в исправительной колонии общего режима. Надежда обжаловала приговор, но судебная коллегия оставила его в силе.

Совсем недавно, летом 2016 года, против 33-летней женщины из Брянска, что в 379 километрах к юго-западу от Москвы, было возбуждено уголовное дело за предположительное заражение своего друга ВИЧ. Суд использовал против нее тот факт, что женщина состояла на учете в СПИД-центре с 2007 года, а этого мужчину она встретила в 2014 году. Однако, решение суда было относительно мягким, женщине назначили условное лишение свободы на три года с таким же испытательным сроком. Кроме того, как и полагается в лучших практиках, ее имя и фамилию в СМИ не указывали, в отличие от Надежды из предыдущей истории, чье имя было опубликовано в релизе пресс-службы прокуратуры.

На конференции AIDS 2016 в прошлом месяце в Дурбане, Сеть «Правосудие и ВИЧ» сообщила о новых данных, которые показывают, что Россия возглавляет топ лиги глобальной криминализации ВИЧ. Мы нашли сообщения о по меньшей мере 115 арестах, преследованиях и/или обвинениях в России в течение 30 месяцев с апреля 2013 года по октябрь 2015 года.

Мы собрали одиннадцать историй российских СМИ о женщинах, обвиняемых по статье 122.

Начиная с 2007 года, по меньшей мере трое из этих женщин были приговорены к более, чем четырем годам в тюрьме предположительно за заражение ВИЧ одного или более партнеров. Еще одна женщина получила oдин год семь месяцев тюрьмы, еще две женщины – условный срок продолжительностью один год и три года. В одном случае суд приговорил 20-летнюю женщину к 6-месячному условному сроку. Вердикты по трем случаям не известны.

Преследуется не только предположительное заражение ВИЧ; мы также знаем о деле 2013 года против женщины из города Кунгур в Пермской области, которую приговорили к одному году трем месяца в исправительной колонии за потенциальное или предположительное поставление в опасность заражения ВИЧ: ее партнер не заразился.

Особую обеспокоенность в этих рейсах вызывают доказательства, что обвиняемые знали о своем ВИЧ-позитивном статусе, были основаны на медицинских историях. В России каждый вновь диагностированный человек должен подписать информированное согласие, где указано, что он или она проинформированы о возможной уголовной ответственности по статье 122 за постановку в угрозу заражения и заражение ВИЧ. Это информированное согласие хранится вместе с медицинской историей пациента, готовое для официального запроса.

Более того, в случаях предположительной передачи ВИЧ, прокурор не исследовал адекватно причинно-следственную связь между подозреваемым и потерпевшим, потому что не существует теста, который может установить время и направление передачи без всякого сомнения. Например, возможно, что некоторые потерпевшие мужчины были заражены ВИЧ до того, как у они вступили в отношения с их партнерами-женщинами, и перед тем, как они сами получили ВИЧ-позитивный диагноз

Статья 122 была введена в Уголовный Кодекс, в частности, чтобы защитить женщин от ВИЧ-инфекции, но из нашего исследования станосится ясно, что в России этот закон применяется против женщин.

Существует много причин, почему женщины более уязвимы, когда криминализация ВИЧ пересекается с гендерным неравенством и насилием. Это касается, но не ограничивается, следующим:

Женщины часто не принимают решения о том, когда и с кем заниматься сексом, использовать презервативы или нет.
Женщины часто зависимы экономически от своего партнера, что усиливает неравенство в их отношениях.
К сожалению, есть данные, что насилие со стороны интимного партнера часто следует за тем, когда женщина раскрывает свой ВИЧ-статус.
Страх уголовного преследования мешает женщинам тестироваться, знать свой статус и получать лечение ВИЧ, потому что многие законы применяются исключительно против тех, кто знает о своем диагнозе.

Мы надеемся, что если пролить свет на то, что происходит в России, это поможет мобилизации людей против этого несправедливого преследования. Так как появляются новые кейсы, мы продолжим информировать о них на сайте Сети “Правосудие и ВИЧ”.

USA: New coalition in Indiana determined to modernised HIV criminalisation laws

HIV Modernization Movement-Indiana (HMM) operates under three guiding principles.

Many Indiana state laws regarding HIV make it a crime to have the virus—commonly referred to as HIV criminalization—and HIV Modernization Movement-Indiana (HMM), a newly formed coalition, seeks to change that. The group, which is made up of students, professors, nonprofit leaders, legal advisers and more, examines Indiana’s HIV laws, in hopes of modernizing them based on current research.

HHM states that its guiding principles for modernizing laws are:

A criminal law must be based on criminal intent to infect and conduct likely to transmit.
A criminal law must only include punitive measures that are proportionate to the harm.
A criminal law must not be specific to HIV and must exclude diseases that are airborne/casually transmitted.

HMM started after POZ founder Sean Strub, who leads the anti-criminalization advocacy group Sero Project, spoke at Indiana University-Indianapolis in December 2015. Strub and Scott Schoettes, Lambda Legal HIV project director, discussed the problems of criminal law in Indiana with a group of 40 community members. Following that, 10 individuals attended the HIV Is Not a Crime II conference in May to be trained on law reform and subsequently formed HMM. The group, which is made up of HIV-positive and HIV-negative people from diverse backgrounds, mostly from the Indianapolis area, meets once a month.

Longtime HIV/AIDS activist Carrie Foote, PhD, leads the group. An associate professor at Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis, she was included in the 2015 POZ 100, which celebrated long-term survivors of the virus.

“Current Indiana laws that criminalize HIV are based on outdated assumptions about HIV and single out HIV to be handled differently than other sexually transmitted infections, which also, if left untreated, can seriously harm a person,” Foote says. “Most of these laws were passed when far less was known about the actual routes and risks of HIV transmission and prior to the introduction of effective HIV treatments. The laws are also overly broad and subject to different interpretations, do not reflect best criminal law practices, have punishments completely disproportionate to any purported harm, and do not reflect the current science regarding how HIV is (and is not) transmitted.”

In an email exchange with POZ, Foote spells out specific HIV laws that HMM is targeting:

IC 16-41-7-1 (Carriers’ duty to warn persons at risk) and IC 35-45-21-3 (Failure of carriers of dangerous communicable diseases to warn persons at risk) criminalize nondisclosure of HIV status in cases where a person knows their status and engages in sexual or needle sharing activity that has been shown “epidemiologically to transmit a dangerous communicable disease, which in Indiana includes HIV and hepatitis B.”

IC 16-41-14-17 (Donation, sale, or transfer of HIV infected semen) and IC 35-45-21-1(b)-(c)(Transferring contaminated body fluids) make it a felony for HIV-positive persons to donate or sell their semen, blood or plasma.

IC 35-42-2-1(b2), (e), (g) (Battery) and IC 35-45-16-2(a)-(f) (Malicious Mischief) include sentence enhancement charges that make it a felony for HIV-positive persons to expose others to any bodily fluid, including those known not to transmit HIV, such as saliva.

HMM and Foote believe that these laws do little to prevent transmission and instead promote stigma and discrimination.

“One of the most troubling aspects of Indiana Code involves the Indiana Duty to Warn statute (IC.16-41-7), which requires a person living with HIV to disclose his or her HIV status to sex or needle-sharing partners,” Foote explains. “A person can be prosecuted for engaging in consensual sexual activities if they do not disclose, even in cases where no HIV transmission is possible. The same is true for the sentence enhancement criminal codes. Such enhancement occurs in situations where it is impossible to transmit HIV. As such, in Indiana, a person can be tried and convicted simply because of his or her HIV status, which is discriminatory and perpetuates HIV stigma.”

HMM is also working to reform public health practices, such as Indiana’s Recalcitrant Program,which accepts reports of HIV-positive persons accused of “violating the Indiana HIV disclosure law.” Coupled with counseling, the program has people sign a form saying they’ve been advised on the “Carriers’ duty to warn persons at risk” law.

“While the program may have some positive attributes, such as offering counseling services around disclosure, we have serious concerns about the program’s goal to ensure compliance with the Indiana Duty to Warn laws as a way to decrease the spread of HIV,” Foote says. “This is because the research shows that such laws do not prevent the spread of HIV, serve primarily to stigmatize PLHIV [people living with HIV] and are not best practices for public health policy.”

Indiana was brought into the spotlight a year ago when more than 100 new HIV cases in Austin, Indiana, were reported in an outbreak linked to opioid addiction. At this point, no one involved in the outbreak has been charged under any of the above statutes, yet as HIV-positive people, they now could be criminalized in the future if the laws remain as they are.

Indiana’s conservative current governor and the Republican nominee for vice president, Mike Pence, has historically stood against efforts proven to prevent HIV transmission, like needle exchange programs. Yet, Foote notes, these laws haven’t been touched in years.

“[There’s been] neutral effect on criminalization laws thus far, as our laws were mostly created in the early ’90s, and very [few people], if anyone, in Indiana has given much thought to even questioning those laws until now,” Foote continues. “That said, we do anticipate challenges to modernization and reform, given our conservative governmental leadership in Indiana but are hopeful that with education and strong advocacy efforts, modernization is inevitable to happen.”

To learn more about HMM, visit its website at hivmodernizationmovement.org, and follow them onFacebook and Pinterest.

Originally published in Poz

US: Mainstream criminal justice website uses quiz format to highlight how unjust HIV criminalisation is in the United States

Is It Time to Roll Back the Laws on Spreading HIV?

Take our quiz on which criminal penalties remain in force.

In the wake of the HIV epidemic that began in the early 1980s, lawmakers throughout the country moved to criminalize behavior that threatened to spread the virus, enacting laws that imposed sometimes heavy fines and jail terms for infected individuals who failed to tell sex partners about their illness.

Florida, Tennessee and Washington were the first states to enact HIV-related criminal laws, in 1986. A 1988 report from the Presidential Commission on the HIV Epidemic recommended that states establish such laws and many did. At present, more than 30 have HIV-related criminal laws.

But now that new therapies have greatly lowered the risks of transmission, advocates for those with HIV say these laws are too harsh and should be revised to reduce penalties, or be repealed.

While the laws were initially intended to help lower the rate of transmission and deter “risky behavior,” according to the commission report, recent studies have shown that the laws discourage testing, reduce disclosure and otherwise work against public health efforts. The Department of Justice in 2014 issued a guide for states to reform HIV-specific laws so that they are informed by current knowledge of HIV transmission, in addition to help prevent and treat HIV. While the number of new cases of HIV has remained stable (about 50,000 per year) between 2005 and 2014, gay and bisexual men as well as African-Americans continue to be most affected. The incidence of HIV among black and Latino men who have sex with men increased over the same period, the result being that the laws disproportionately affect them.

See how much you know about laws that potentially make living with HIV a crime.

Take the quiz here

AIDS 2016: Criminalisation is harmful and wrong, and is also damaging prevention strategies

Over 200 activists called for an end to HIV criminalisation throughout the world saying it unjustly harms and blames HIV positive people, damages prevention strategies and undermines national and international sexual health programs.

Earlier during the week some 200 people living with HIV, human rights activists and representatives of key populations gathered for a one-day meeting, held at Durban South Africa, challenging HIV criminalisation under the title “Beyond blame: challenging HIV criminalisation.”

The meeting, which preceded the International Aids Conference in Durban, heard individuals who have faced HIV criminalization recount the far-reaching personal, social and legal impacts of unjust prosecution on their lives and that of their families. Furthermore activists outlined how HIV criminalisation not only uses blame culture, harming not only HIV positive people, but also damaging prevention and undermining sexual health programs world-wide.

The meeting demanded that HIV scientists and clinicians become more involved in efforts to ensure that the application of the criminal law is consistent with best available evidence relating to risk, harm and proof in the context of HIV, as well as calls for members of parliament and the judiciary to end unjust HIV criminalisation.

Speaking with KaleidoScot, Edwin J Bernard, Coordinator at HIV Justice Network, who organised the meeting said: “The meeting included three HIV criminalisation survivors – including one, Kerry Thomas, who called in from behind bars in Idaho – highlighted that HIV criminalisation doesn’t just harm public health, it harms the lives of ordinary people living with HIV, who are often demonised, stigmatised and unjustly targeted by the law.

“Elizabeth Taylor’s grandchildren (and great-grandchild) Laela Wilding, Finn McMurray, Rhys Tivey, and Quinn Tivey were also there, and so incredibly moved, was also inspiring. They have pledged to make HIV criminalisation a key issue for the Elizabeth Taylor AIDS Foundation.

“Then on Tuesday morning, following Justice Edwin Cameron’s Jonathan Mann Memorial Lecture, more than 100 of us took to the stage demanding an end to HIV criminalisation. Justice Cameron welcomed us with open arms, literally! We chanted: WE HAVE A VIRUS! WE ARE NOT CRIMINALS! END CRIMINALISATION NOW!”

HIV medication, or antiretroviral (ARVs), is now highly effective to the point that people who have HIV and use ARVs properly are effectively non-infectious, a recent study found zero infection cases between mixed-HIV status couples. However, many new infection cases arise from people who are unaware of their HIV status – something that HIV criminalisation is likely to worsen, not help.

The general consensus among the scientific and medical communities – and HIV charities – is that ascribing personal blame for infection is neither reliable nor helpful, and that decisions on public health matters should be determined by cost-effectiveness and clinical need rather than moral judgements.

The UNAIDS guidance aims to “end overly broad criminalization of HIV non-disclosure, exposure and transmission on the basis that it “raises serious human rights and public health concerns”. it recommends “concentrating efforts on expanding the use of proven and successful evidence-informed and rights-based public health approaches to HIV prevention, treatment and care” and “limiting any application of criminal law to truly blameworthy cases where it is needed to achieve justice.”

The Oslo Declaration also suggests that “a better alternative [to criminalisation] is to create an environment that enables people to seek testing, support and timely treatment, and to safely disclose their HIV status.”

Activists pointed out that not only is criminalisation harmful and wrong, but it is counterproductive and even endangers prevention strategies. Martha Tholanah, a feminist activist from Zimbabwe, and director of the NGO Community and Enterprise Development against Stigma, told Kaleidoscot that she agrees “with the activists on calling for an end to criminalisation of HIV. It’s scary that the criminalisation cases are increasing. I wonder if the judicial services personnel ever look at the research and consider how the evidence produced can be considered before they tackle these cases. Criminlisation perpetuates stigma and instigates mental health problems.”

While Maurice Tomlinson, a Senior Policy Analyst at Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network, commented: “To paraphrase the UNAIDS report released in advance of the ongoing International AIDS Conference, continued criminalisation has stalled the global fight against HIV by driving persons away from effective prevention, treatment, care and support interventions. We can’t fight HIV with fear. We must respond with facts and human rights.”

Activists have also expressed concerns about Scots law, which they believe is doing a disservice to both people who have HIV and wider issues of public health.

Under Scots law, exposing or infecting someone with HIV are considered “culpable and reckless conduct”. These are common-law offences that carry a maximum penalty of life imprisonment, as opposed to five years in England and Wales. If the transmission of HIV is deliberate, it would be legally considered an assault. Scottish law focuses on behaviour (unlike English and Welsh law which focuses on the harm that results from such behaviour): thus exposing others to the risk of HIV transmission (‘HIV exposure’) can be prosecuted. The law however does not specifically mention HIV but has been used against HIV and hepatitis positive people.

Lisa Power, a sexual health campaigner who was the co-founder of Stonewall and who also served as the Secretary-General of the International Lesbian & Gay Association, believes that the “messy” and “damaging” stance of Scots law on the issue needs to be reconsidered, and that Scotland should learn from other jurisdictions.

She told KaleidoScot: ”I think that the South African model is sensible – it only prosecutes for intentional transmission, which includes transmission where there has been a sustained course of deceptive behaviour.

“Various charities have worked with Government lawyers in England and Wales to draft changes to the assault laws back in the 1990s which would have made things here much clearer, simpler and restricted to intentional transmission – but sadly the law change never got enacted so we still have the messy old Victorian laws – and the Scottish ones are even messier.

“But my experience is that trying to prosecute reckless transmission during casual sex has resulted in quite a lot of damage, including miscarriages of justice, because it’s so extremely complicated and people make all sorts of assumptions.

“The trouble with all the UK criminal laws is that we have no way of apportioning responsibility, it’s all victim and offender, which is not how most sex happens. Scotland is worse because you have laws on your books that let the Procurator Fiscal bring cases for exposure – and that’s a ridiculous charge now we have TasP and PreP and we know the relative (low) risks of any one sexual encounter.”

She added: “In my experience, people rush to conclusions, they expect the worst and they also rush to judgement. And as often as not they were wrong.”

A Scottish activist, who asked to remain anonymous, told KaleidoScot: “Criminalising HIV transmission merely perpetuates and even encourages stigmatisation, affects the ability of people to openly discuss their health issues, makes it less likely people will present for testing and ultimately plays into the spread of HIV.”

Robert McKay, National Director Terrence Higgins Trust Scotland, echoed many of these sentiments. He told KaleidoScot: “The current legal situation creates more confusion and potential challenges for people living in Scotland. Whilst it’s important to keep people safe, it’s also important that the law uses intent as a better measure of criminal behaviour as opposed to recklessness.”

When contacted, the charity HIV Scotland, however, only reiterated the current status of Scots legislation and underlined that there has been improvement with “stake holders such as Police Scotland” which resulted in zero prosecutions in the last few years.

A recent study found that prosecutions for HIV non-disclosure, potential or perceived exposure and/or unintentional transmission have now been reported in 61 countries. This total increases to 105 jurisdictions when individual US states and Australian states / territories are counted separately.

Of the 61 countries, 26 applied HIV criminalisation laws, 32 applied general criminal or public health laws, and three (Australia, Denmark and United States) applied both HIV criminalisation and general laws.

There are reports of at least 313 arrests, prosecutions and/or convictions in 28 countries during the report period, covering 1 April 2013 to 30 September 2015.

The highest number of cases during this period were reported in: Russia (at least 115), United States (at least 104), Belarus (at least 20), Canada (at least 17), France (at least 7), United Kingdom (at least 6), Italy (at least 6), Australia (at least 5), Germany (at least 5).

AIDS 2016: Intersectional approaches linking issues across areas of criminalisation have been key themes of AIDS 2016

Susana T. Fried – 22 July 2016

In a moment of global attacks on civil society, an intersectional approach linking issues across HIV, sexuality, adult consensual sex and bodily integrity is critical. Now, more than ever.

Every international AIDS conference seems to have a theme or two that picks up energy as it goes. For me, at the World AIDS Conference 2016 underway in Durban, this was the growing discussion about disastrous impact of criminal law. Of course, this isn’t a new issue – not at an international AIDS conference, nor in advocacy more generally. The 2012 Global Commission on HIV and the Law explored this in depth. However, at this AIDS conference there was a renewed energy behind it. In addition, there were a number of conversations that added a new twist, linking criminalisation of same sex conduct, sex work and HIV criminalisation to criminalisation of abortion.

For someone who stands with one leg in the women’s movement and another in the HIV movement, this was a welcome and long overdue conversation. We know the ways in which abusive laws and practices put sex workers, gay and other men who have sex with men, transgender women (there is still a dearth of data on HIV and transmen or lesbians and other women who have sex with women) and other marginalised groups at increased risk of contracting HIV and create serious and unmanageable barriers to accessing services and justice. We also know the ways in which governments use criminal laws not just to contain and regulate the lives of individuals, but they also use it to circumscribe the work of civil society organisations working on these issues.

Laws that criminalise adult consensual sex, non-heteronormative behavior and gender transgression are used to control (often in the name of “protection”), penalise and, as a result, stigmatise a range of sexual practices and sexual and gender identities that put health and rights at risk. Many of the groups who are on the receiving end of such punitive laws and practices are among those most at risk of contracting HIV. This conversation, despite massive evidence, still doesn’t always inform legislation and public policy. This is, in a sense, “old hat” to social movements across the board.

However, what was new to the conversation at this year’s International AIDS Conference (AIDS2016) in a visible way and in a public conversation was the introduction of criminalisation of abortion to the list of forms of criminalisation that intersect with HIV risk and vulnerability. At one panel, Lucinda O’Hanlon from the UN human rights office drew out some of the parallels between criminalisation of abortion and other forms of criminalisation, stating “Restrictive legal regimes on abortions, including criminalisation, do not reduce abortion rates but rather makes them unsafe. These restrictions are rooted in societal norms that deny women’s agency and capacity to make decisions about their own lives.” In many countries, women who undergo abortions are stigmatised as improper women, much like sex workers who, as Ruth Morgan Thomas noted “Criminalisation of sex work sends the message that sex workers are not seen as fit and worthy to enjoy rights.”

However, the linkages can be more direct. For example, transmen who have sex with other men and become pregnant may find it impossible to find safe and non-judgmental sexual and reproductive health care, let alone abortion services. Sex workers, too, may find their access to abortion services restricted because of the ripple effect of laws criminalising sex work. With abortion, as with other groups whose identities and practices are penalised, other factors of marginalisation matter. In the case of abortion, it is women with fewer resources who are at greatest risk of facing punishment for their choice. The same could be said for those who get penalised for living with HIV. For example, a young woman who has been coerced into having sex and fears that the man she had sex with might be living with HIV, will find it difficult in many countries, to have an abortion. In some countries, if she is under the age of consent for services, she will have to get parental consent just to be able to see a sexual and reproductive health practitioner. A limited number of countries ban abortions under any circumstances, even, in some cases, as a principle of their country’s constitution (Ecuador, for instance). Most countries allow abortion under some circumstances, but access the services requires money, information and the ability to travel. Such resource requirements have a particularly severe impact on young women, poor women, and women in marginalised groups. Failing to learn lessons from HIV, women, adolescents and girls in countries affected by Zika face similar barriers to services and justice.

In a cross-issue conversation, Edwin Bernard from the HIV Justice Network also noted a “shift towards intersectionality in our efforts to end the punitive and abusive laws against various populations,” including women who seek or undergo abortions. In this context, these conversations stand as a clarion call for a new or renewed effort to link forces to challenge the growing reliance on punitive laws and practices, including those about abortion, by governments to control those who step outside of social norms around gender and sexuality.

Originally published in Crosstalk

AIDS 2016: Discriminatory laws and policies hinder access to HIV prevention, treatment, and care for the populations most at risk of HIV

At the 21st International AIDS Conference (AIDS 2016) in Durban, researchers and community representatives discussed the impact of discriminatory laws and policies in many parts of the world that hinder access to HIV prevention, treatment, and care for the populations most at risk of HIV infection — men who have sex with men, transgender people, sex workers, people who inject drugs, and prisoners.

The latest data from UNAIDS show that these vulnerable populations account for more than one-third of all new HIV infections globally. Compared to the general population: transgender people are 49 times more likely to be living with HIV; men who have sex with men and people who inject drugs are each 24 times more likely to become infected with HIV; sex workers are 10 times more likely to become infected; and prisoners are five times more likely to be living with HIV.

“We will not end AIDS without addressing the needs of the most vulnerable individuals and communities, yet far too many are currently being left behind,” said Chris Beyrer, AIDS 2016 International Chair and President of the International AIDS Society. “Protecting human rights is not just a moral issue, it is a scientific issue. Research presented at this conference will demonstrate that exclusion and discrimination help fuel the spread of HIV.”

Beyrer recently served on a special Johns Hopkins University-Lancet Commission on Drug Policy and Health. He was lead author of the Commission’s final report, published in March 2016 in advance of the UN Special Session on the World Drug Problem. The report concluded in part that drug laws intended to protect have instead contributed to disease transmission, discrimination, lethal violence, and forced displacement, and have undermined people’s right to health.

“Dealing effectively with HIV will require our communities and societies to break down longstanding prejudice, hatred, and ignorance,” said Justice Edwin Cameron of the Constitutional Court of South Africa. “Only when scientific advances are matched by social and cultural progress can this epidemic truly be contained.”

Originally published in Edge Media Network

AIDS 2016: The criminalization of vulnerable populations fuels the HIV epidemic in many countries

THE criminalization of same-sex relationships and prostitution in most parts of the continent has been cited as the major cause of the recurrence of HIV/AIDS in recent years.

After a period of decline, new HIV infections among adults across the globe are on the rise again, it has emerged at the International AIDS Conference in Durban, South Africa.

South Africa is the only African country legalise same-sex unions.

According to Human Rights Watch (HRW), HIV remains stubbornly high among men who have intercourse with men, sex workers, people who use drugs, and transgender women.

Groups like these, which are criminalized in many places, account for more than one-third of new HIV infections worldwide.

HRW Senior Researcher of Health and Human Rights, Megan McLemore, said criminalization restricted access to health care, forcing those most vulnerable to HIV to the margins of society.

“For the sake of populations most vulnerable to HIV, criminal laws need to be reformed, and fast. There is no time to waste,” said McLemore.

Meanwhile, a special issue of the Lancet medical journal released at the Durban conference described prisoners as the most neglected and vulnerable of all populations in the global HIV/AIDS response.

“Prison health care is abysmal in many parts of the world, and HIV prevention and treatment inside some jails is limited or nonexistent,” said McLemore.

Human Rights Watch has documented government failure to provide HIV prevention and treatment programs to prisoners, most recently in Louisiana parish jails.

Michel Sidibe, executive director at UNAIDS, said nearly 2 million people become HIV-positive every year.

Originally published in Caj News

AIDS 2016: HIV criminalisation is on the rise, report presenters at Beyond Blame preconference

HIV criminalisation on the rise, especially in sub-Saharan Africa

Lesley Odendal

Globally, 72 countries have adopted laws that specifically allow for HIV criminalisation, either because the law is specific to HIV, or because it names HIV as one (or more) of the diseases covered by a broader law. This total increases to 101 jurisdictions when the HIV criminalisation laws in 30 of the states that make up the United States are counted individually.

Prosecutions for HIV non-disclosure, potential or perceived exposure and/or unintentional transmission have now been reported in 61 countries. Of the 61 countries, 26 countries applied HIV criminalisation laws and 32 applied general criminal or public-health related laws, according to HIV Justice Worldwide, an international partnership of organizations, made up of the AIDS and Rights Alliance for Southern Africa (ARASA), the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network, the Global Network of People Living with HIV, the HIV Justice Network, the International Community of Women Living with HIV, the Positive Women’s Network USA and the Sero Project. The findings were presented at the Beyond Blame preconference held at the 21st International AIDS Conference, in Durban, South Africa, this week.

HIV criminalisation refers to the unjust application of criminal law to people living with HIV, based on their HIV status, either through the use of HIV-specific criminal statutes or by applying general criminal laws that allow for the prosecution of unintentional HIV transmission, potential or perceived exposure to HIV – even where HIV is not transmitted – and/or the non-disclosure of known HIV-positive status.

“HIV criminalisation is profoundly bad policy. It is based on fear and outdated understanding of HIV risk and harm and magnifies stigma and discrimination towards people living with HIV,” said Justice Edwin Cameron, judge of the South Africa Constitutional Court.

These laws are not guided by the scientific and medical evidence relating to the transmission mechanisms of HIV, fail to uphold the principles of legal and judicial fairness (such as foreseeability, intent, causality and proof) and directly infringe the human rights of those involved in these cases.

“The evidence that criminalisation as a public health strategy does not work is too plain to contest. It is our responsibility to end it”, said Hon. Patrick Herminie, Speaker of the National Assembly of Seychelles.

To date, thirty countries in sub-Saharan Africa have passed laws criminalising HIV transmission or exposure in some form, including Botswana, Cote d’Ivoire, Nigeria and Uganda, which passed laws in the last year. There has also been a rise in reported prosecutions in sub-Saharan Africa since 2015, in Botswana, South Africa, Uganda and especially Zimbabwe.

An additional workshop at the conference explored the common roots of criminalisation. Panelists identified the key reasons for these misused and often overly-broad interpretations of criminal laws as being due to fear, moral panic, containment of the HIV epidemic and state-sponsored control of bodily autonomy, including sexual conduct and stigma to impose sanctions on those viewed as not being ‘fit and worthy’ of enjoying the protectionist mandate of these laws.

Pervasive gender inequality, power dynamics, and ‘victim-status’ were acknowledged as preventing women from accessing justice to the same extent as men. It was recommended that a feminist framework is used as a strategy to address the criminalisation of HIV as female and transgender sex workers, migrants, indigenous and black women suffer the most from these HIV-specific laws.

Rosemary Namiburu, an ex-nurse from Uganda, who was imprisoned after she was prosecuted for not revealing her HIV status to her partner is an example of this: “My life will not be the same after facing HIV criminalisation. My 30 years of working as a nurse and dedicated to saving lives have been erased. I have spent almost a year in prison and have been branded as a criminal and a killer, even though I have harmed no one.”

Originally published in aidsmap.com

AIDS 2016: Criminal laws need to be reformed for the sake of populations most vulnerable to HIV

Durban – The war on HIV and Aids could be stymied by the unequal application of criminal laws.

This was the consensus of a group of researchers at a session at the International Aids Conference titled “Beyond blame: A feminist dialogue on criminalisation of HIV transmission, exposure and non-disclosure”, which looked at misapplication of the laws of certain countries and their impact on the epidemic.

“The law is a critical tool for creating an enabling environment for effective responses to HIV and to provide access to justice for those affected by HIV. While some have argued in favour of laws criminalising HIV exposure, transmission or non-disclosure as protective of women, they in fact leave them more vulnerable to persecution and increased violence,” said organisers in their introduction.

Marama Pala, a New Zealand activist who was infected 24 years ago, said when the trial against the man who had infected her began, she was painted as the victim. And because she was seen as “criminalising” the spread of HIV, she was ostracised by those living with the virus.

“I was only 22. I didn’t have an education. People would look at me and say: ‘Poor girl’. Everyone called me a victim. But I’m not.”

She said that experience, and many more, had convinced her that this approach did not work and instead became another way to abuse human rights.

“As an indigenous woman (she is Maori) I know how people of colour are always the ones to be disproportionately affected by laws like this one.”

Members of the LGBTI community and prostitutes were also targeted. This point was raised by Jules Kim, a prostitute at Scarlet Alliance, an Australian association, who said that a trans-woman prostitute was now facing charges and was being held in a men’s maximum security prison.

“No white men have been arrested under these laws, unless they are sex workers. Even if a person has been on ARVs for years (meaning that their viral load has been suppressed and they cannot pass on the virus), they are still arrested and face criminal charges.”

She said everyone had a responsibility to protect their sexual health.

Ruth Morgan Thomas, global co-ordinator of the Global Network of Sex Work Projects, said these laws were based on “family values”.

“The custodians of the law – the police – are the ones who are sometimes perpetrators of the violence. If you report a rape, they tell you that that can’t be possible, because you’re a whore.”

Men who had sex with men also bore the brunt of those laws.

Originally published on iol

Uganda: Civil societies challenge HIV criminalisation

KAMPALA – “Whereas the law might have potential to positively contribute to the current HIV/AIDS response efforts in Uganda, there are some contentious clauses that could deter all the benefits realized in the fight against the scourge.”

This is what activists and people living with HIV are saying.

The HIV and AIDS Prevention and Control Act came into effect on July 31, 2014 when President Yoweri Museveni assented to it. But people living with HIV, together with civil society organizations, say it presents a challenge for the human rights of infected people and also undermines several critical issues.

The salient features that are scanned out in the law are: Clauses 41 and 43 of the Act that provide for prosecution on grounds of attempted and intentional transmission of HIV, respectively. Among the provisions of the piece of legislation is criminal penalty for risk and intentional transmission of the virus.

The Act would require mandatory disclosure of one’s HIV status, failure of which would be regarded as “criminal”, and attempting to or, intentionally transmitting the virus.

Failure to use a condom where one knows their HIV status would constitute a criminal offence, making them liable for prosecution.

The Civil Society HIV/AIDS Bill Coalition has been lobbying members of parliament to change the clauses in the Act that are construed to create negative effects in the national response to HIV/AIDS, but lawmakers have been adamant about the issue.

It is against this background that people living with HIV under their umbrella organization the National Forum of People Living with HIV & AIDS Networks in Uganda (NAFOPHANU) together with Uganda Network on Law Ethics and HIV/AIDS (UGANET) and the International Community of Women living with HIV Eastern Africa (ICWEA recently petitioned the constitutional court to review the Act and amend the contentious clauses (41, 43 and 18).

“Honestly, if proven, such behavior cannot go unpunished. The question however is ‘How can it be proven that indeed the HIV of the accuser was got from the accused?’ There is fear that public knowledge of one’s HIV positive status would be used against them due to personal differences,” says Lillian Mworeko (pictured immediately below), regional coordinator for ICWEA.

She argues that this will ultimately discourage people from testing to know their status fearing that if found positive, their status could be used against them in courts of law at any point in time.

It should thus be noted that one who does not know their status cannot be held liable under this law.

“We should avoid creating scenarios where people living with HIV/AIDS are looked at as criminals or potential criminals,” warns Dora Musinguzi, executive director of UGANET.

Eventually, she adds, people will inadvertently live with the virus without accessing treatment and by the time they get to know their status it will be too late.

Stella Kentutsi, the executive director of NAFOPHANU, regrets that these clauses seem to target those already openly living with HIV and as such will affect disclosure, fuel stigma and discrimination thus increasing new infections and affecting access to already available services.

“To this effect, HIV infections and deaths will escalate thus watering down all the achievements so far attained in the fight against HIV. Partner and third party notification in clause 18(2) (e) is likely to breed domestic violence as a health worker is given a right to disclose to a partner without a client’s consent. It also infringes on the right to privacy as per our constitution- Article 27,” Kentutse. –

n their petition, the concerned groups give eight strong points on which they base their ground.

1. The law when enacted will drive people underground

In the face of possible prosecution and forced disclosure, most people will hide away; there would be no reason to take an HIV test in fear of prosecution.

2. It shall be counter-productive

As people shun HIV services and treatment for all possible fears that arise with the provisions of the law, prevention and control cannot be achieved.

3. Taking an HIV test is the beginning point for both control and prevention, however the ACT will deter this effort by empowering medical practitioners to release test results to third parties.

4. It will indiscriminately harass women

Most women get to know their HIV status before their male counterparts as they interface with medical facilities more often. Giving them an extra burden to disclose their status mandatory as a blanket requirement may subject them to violence, abandonment and abuse as they are usually blamed for bringing the virus. In our societies, women cannot easily negotiate sex nor condom use, yet failure to use one while they know their status will warrant such a woman punishment for intentional transmission of the HIV virus.

5. May breakdown families who are already vulnerable

Opening a window for prosecution will encourage family breakdowns where one partner who gets to know their status, blames it on the other and files a case in court. Intentional transmission may never get proved, but the family structure will have been distorted, partners desert each other with the consequent burden born by the poor orphans. HIV status is bad enough for the children but humiliating and sometimes vicious litigation between parents tears their lives apart.

6. Is not situation-specific or realistic

The conditions for this ACT to operate are not realistic, it is extremely difficult to prove who infected the other and therefore it is to no effect. The judiciary in this country is very much strained and it takes long to pass judgment. How many lives would be destroyed if it takes an average five to seven years to get judgment? Worse, the Police force is ineffective and is known to fail to comprehend and prosecute cases of this nature.

7. Selective prosecution

The ACT targets the 20% of Ugandans that have tested and know their status and presumes that some of those knowingly and intentionally transmit HIV. What about the rest of the population who do not know their status yet transmit and cannot be found in the ambit of this ACT? This is unfair, obnoxious and unreasonable and cannot possibly be regarded as an efficacious law.

8. Increased stigma and discrimination

The moment HIV is construed with criminalization and then people go into hiding, those living with HIV will suffer societal victimization since they would now be regarded as threats to public health. As a nation, we can still do better since on this one, we are all in it together.

Originally published in New Vision