US: Democratic Party pledges to "address HIV criminalization laws" in its 2016 draft party platform

Democratic Party Comes Out Strong for LGBTQ Equality in 2016 Party Platform

HRC Blog by post by Stephen Peters

Today, the Democratic Party released its draft 2016 party platform, including key provisions that focus on improving the lives of LGBTQ people and advocating for full equality.

“This is the most LGBTQ-inclusive platform of any major U.S. party,” said JoDee Winterhof, HRC’s Senior Vice President for Policy and Political Affairs. “We will continue to work with the Democratic Party to ensure the most robust platform for LGBTQ Americans. From protecting LGBTQ young people to ending the epidemic of violence against transgender people to passing an explicit and comprehensive federal non-discrimination law to bringing about an AIDS-free generation, the platform addresses many of the major challenges facing our community today.”

Here are some of the highlights:

LGBT Rights

Democrats applaud last year’s decision by the Supreme Court that recognized LGBT people— like every other American—have the right to marry the person they love. But there is still much work to be done. LGBT kids continue to be bullied at school, a restaurant can refuse to serve a transgender person, and a same-sex couple is at risk of being evicted from their home. That is unacceptable and must change. Democrats will fight for comprehensive federal non- discrimination protections for all LGBT Americans and push back against state efforts to discriminate against LGBT individuals. We will combat LGBT youth homelessness and improve school climates, and we will protect transgender individuals from violence. We will promote LGBT human rights and ensure America’s foreign policy is inclusive of LGBT people around the world.

Civil Rights

Democrats will always fight to end discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, language, religion, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability. We need to promote civility and speak out against bigotry and other forms of intolerance that have entered our political discourse. It is unacceptable to target, defame, or exclude anyone because of their religion, race, ethnicity, national origin, or sexual orientation.

HIV and AIDS

Democrats believe an AIDS-free generation is within our grasp. But we know far too many Americans still suffer, which is why we will implement the National HIV and AIDS Strategy, increase research funding for the National Institutes of Health, cap pharmaceutical expenses for people living with HIV and AIDS, address HIV criminalization laws, and expand access for HIV prevention medications, particularly for the populations most at risk of infection. Abroad, we will make the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief more effective and increase global funding for HIV and AIDS prevention and treatment. Democrats will always protect those living with HIV and AIDS from stigma and discrimination.

Supporting our Troops

[…]Democrats welcome and honor all Americans who want to serve and will continue to fight for their equal rights and recognition. We are proud of the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell and the opening of combat positions to women. Our military is strongest when people of all races, religions, sexual orientations, and gender identities are honored for their service to our country.

Racial Justice

Democrats will fight to end institutional and systemic racism in our society. We will challenge and dismantle the structures that define lasting racial, economic, political, and social inequity. Democrats will promote racial justice through fair, just, and equitable governing of all institutions serving the public and in the formation of public policy. We will push for a societal transformation to make it clear that black lives matter and there is no place for racism in our country.

Gun Violence Prevention

With 33,000 Americans dying every year, Democrats believe that we must finally take sensible action to address gun violence. While gun ownership is part of the fabric of many communities, too many families in America have suffered from gun violence. We can respect the rights of responsible gun owners while keeping our communities safe. We will expand background checks and close dangerous loopholes in our current laws, hold irresponsible dealers and manufacturers accountable, keep weapons of war—such as assault weapons—off our streets, and ensure guns do not fall into the hands of terrorists, domestic abusers, other violent criminals, and those with severe mental health issues.

Canada: In Nova Scotia, glimmers of hope for science in the prosecution of HIV non-disclosure

Analysis by our HIV JUSTICE WORLDWIDE partner, the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network.

Despite very few prosecutions, Nova Scotia has become an interesting place in Canada with respect to the criminalisation of HIV non-disclosure.

In April 2016, a trial judge from Antigonish ruled that non-disclosure before vaginal sex with a condom or a low viral load (< 1,500 copies/ml) did not amount to aggravated sexual assault.

Back in November 2013, a trial judge from Halifax acquitted a young man with an undetectable viral load who had not disclosed his HIV-positive status before sex without a condom.

These decisions represent significant developments in Canada, where the Supreme Court’s 2012 decision in R. v. Mabior opened the door to prosecutions even if a condom was used or the HIV-positive partner had a low or undetectable viral load.

Thanks to Nova Scotia judges, science might finally prevail.

In the recent Antigonish case, three medical experts testified, all aligning themselves with the Canadian consensus statement on HIV and its transmission in the context of the criminal law that was developed by eminent HIV experts in response to the 2012 Supreme Court decision.

They clearly testified that condoms are highly effective to prevent transmission (“protection is almost 100% when a condom is used,” said the Crown medical expert) and that being on treatment and having a low viral load dramatically reduce the chance of transmitting the virus.

Remarkably, they were also testimonies that the risk of HIV transmission in the absence of ejaculation is at most “negligible” and that HIV transmission from pre-ejaculate, if even possible, is not proven (there was no ejaculation with the first complainant and a reasonable doubt about ejaculation with the second complainant).

Based on the medical evidence before the Court, the trial judge concluded that the legal test of a “realistic possibility of HIV transmission” established in Mabior, which triggers the legal duty to disclose, had not been met. The accused was found not guilty of aggravated sexual assault.

Disappointingly, despite the absence of a “realistic possibility of HIV transmission,” the accused was nevertheless convicted of sexual assault causing bodily harm due to the psychological harm allegedly suffered by the complainants while waiting for their test results (neither of the complainants has contracted HIV).

Despite the progress made in acknowledging scientific evidence, this ultimate decision is highly problematic and arguably legally unfounded. It remains to be seen if the decision will be appealed.

The full decision can be downloaded from the Supreme Court of Novia Scotia’s website

Advocates fighting to end HIV criminalisation reach a global TV/web audience on The Stream

Last night, HIV criminalisation advocacy reached a global audience on both TV and the internet with The Stream, on Al Jazeera English.

During the 30 minute programme, HIV criminalisation survivor, and Sero advisory board member, Ken Pinkela appeared with co-hosts Malika Bilal and Omar Baddar in the Washington DC studio to discuss his case and the role HIV stigma played in his unjust prosecution and wrongful conviction.

He was joined via Skype by ARASA’s Executive Director, Michaela Clayton, who discussed the impact of HIV criminalisation on women in southern and eastern Africa.

Anand Grover, Senior Advocate at Supreme Court of India, founder of India’s Lawyers Collective, and a former UN Special Rappporteur on the Right to Health highlighted the many human rights concerns with a punitive approach to HIV prevention.

I was also on programme, highlighting the work of the HIV Justice Network and citing data from our recent report, Advancing HIV Justice 2.

Contributions were also seen from US HIV advocates Shawn Decker and Nina Martinez, and Colorado Senator Pat Steadman who worked with the Colorado Mod Squad to recently completely overhaul HIV criminalisation in Colorado.

Watch the entire programme below or on the The Stream’s website.

Sweden: Civil societies organisations call for guidelines to prosecutors in cases of HIV-criminalisation

“Major Uncertainty about HIV in Courts – The Prosecutor must act”

Open letter to the Prosecutor General Anders Perklev:

The organizations Hiv-Sweden, RFSL and RFSU call for guidelines for prosecutors for prosecutions against people living with HIV who are at risk of transmitting the virus via sexual contacts.

Signatory organizations promote the development of HIV in Sweden, how people living with HIV perceive their situation, the way in which case law looks and the medical successes in the field. Since 2013, the knowledge base “Infectiousness in Treated HIV Infection” has been developed by the Public Health Authority and the Reference Group for AntiViral Therapy (RAV), which shows that there is a negligible risk of HIV transmission during well-treated treatment.

Since 2016, there is also a document written by medical experts in which the disability rate in HIV is reduced from 40-60% to 0-10%.

These documents should have a major impact on the prosecution of persons, for whom crimes are prosecuted, how damages for a possible transfer should be measured and how seriously the chronic disease HIV should be considered.

RFSU, RFSL and Hiv-Sweden can say that there is great uncertainty in courts and justice in general how to handle the progress made in the medical field regarding HIV. There is no precedent since the knowledge base came and, as the Prosecutor is aware, no trial was given in the Supreme Court for Case B 2152-13, the Court of Appeal over Skåne and Blekinge, in which a person living with HIV and had a so-called well-treated treatment was released from criminal liability.

Signatory organizations welcome the Court of Appeal’s judgment, which clearly takes into account medical success, contagiousness and other facts in the case. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court (in connection with the grant of a review) did not refer to the decision NJA 2004 p. 176, which means that the judgment of the Court of First Instance can not be regarded as prejudicial.

Signatory organizations find it deeply unfortunate that the Supreme Court did not test the case partly referring to precedents no longer based on current knowledge. This means that the legal situation is unchanged and unclear, which creates legal uncertainty for people living with HIV.

Regrettably, we can say that the courts have begun to take care of the medical successes that have been made since 2004, and in the days a new intelligence judgment in which a man living with HIV and standing on a well-treated treatment is released from criminal liability (see Day’s Juridics 2016- 05-31 ). We hope that Objective B 212-15 from Uppsala District Court will proceed in the judicial system and create a new practice in this area.

The judgment states that the risk of HIV transmission to unprotected intercourse is so small in case of well-being treatment that one can not reasonably expect the effect of transfer and thus does not fulfill the objective crimes for the development of danger to another.

Even though the profession assesses the risk of HIV transmission to be neglected in well-preserved HIV even in unprotected intercourse, prosecutors continue to famble as to which acts will lead to prosecutions and which crimes are prosecuted. For example, some prosecutors choose to prosecute people living with HIV, with well-treated treatment, without the intention of transmitting HIV and there was no transfer for attempted abuse, which is neither reasonable nor correct.

RFSU, RFSL and HIV-Sweden want guidelines from the RA to the prosecutor who takes into account the major medical achievements and the knowledge base available to create a fairness in how the judicial system manages this already vulnerable group of people living in our society HIV.

—————————————————————————-

“Stor osäkerhet om HIV hos domstolar och rättsväsende – riksåklagaren måste agera“

Öppet brev till riksåklagaren Anders Perklev:

Organisationerna Hiv-Sverige, RFSL och RFSU efterlyser riktlinjer för åklagare avseende åtal mot personer som lever med hiv och som riskerar att överföra viruset via sexuella kontakter.

Undertecknande organisationer följer utvecklingen noga avseende hiv i Sverige, hur personer som lever med hiv uppfattar sin situation, hur rättspraxis ser ut och de medicinska framgångar som görs på området. Sedan år 2013 finns kunskapsunderlaget “Smittsamhet vid behandlad hivinfektion” framtaget av Folkhälsomyndigheten och Referensgruppen för AntiViral terapi (RAV), i vilket det framgår att det föreligger försumbar risk för överföring av hiv vid välinställd behandling.

Sedan år 2016 finns det även ett dokument skrivet av medicinska experter i vilket invaliditetsgraden vid hiv sänks från tidigare 40-60 % ned till 0-10 %.

Dessa dokument borde få stor inverkan på när personer åtalas, för vilka brott personer åtalas, hur skadestånd vid en eventuell överföring bör mätas och hur allvarlig den kroniska sjukdomen hiv skall betraktas vara.

RFSU, RFSL och Hiv-Sverige kan konstatera att det råder stor osäkerhet i domstolar och rättsväsendet i övrigt hur de ska hantera de framsteg som görs på det medicinska området gällande hiv. Det saknas prejudikat sedan kunskapsunderlaget kom, och som riksåklagaren väl känner till gavs inte prövningstillstånd i högsta domstolen för mål B 2152-13, Hovrätten över Skåne och Blekinge, i vilket en person som lever med hiv och hade en så kallad välinställd behandling friades från straffansvar.

Undertecknande organisationer välkomnar hovrättens dom, som tydligt tar hänsyn till medicinska framgångar, smittsamhetsdokumentet och fakta i övrigt i målet. Dessvärre hänvisade Högsta domstolen (i samband med att prövningstillstånd inte gavs) till avgörandet NJA 2004 s. 176 vilket innebär att hovrättens dom inte kan anses vara prejudicerande.

Undertecknande organisationer finner det djupt olyckligt att Högsta domstolen dels inte prövade målet dels hänvisade till prejudikat som inte längre baserar sig på aktuell kunskap. Detta innebär att rättsläget är oförändrat och otydligt, vilket skapar en rättsosäkerhet för personer som lever med hiv.

Glädjande nog kan vi konstatera att domstolarna ändock har börjat ta till sig av de medicinska framgångar som gjorts sedan 2004 och i dagarna kom en ny underrättsdom i vilken en man som lever med hiv och står på välinställd behandling frias från straffansvar (se Dagens Juridik 2016-05-31) . Vi hoppas att mål B 212-15 från Uppsala tingsrätt skall gå vidare inom rättsväsendet och skapa en ny praxis på området.

I domen konstateras att risken för överföring av hiv vid oskyddade samlag är så pass liten vid välinställd behandling att man inte rimligen kan förvänta sig effekten att överföring sker, och att det därmed inte uppfyller de objektiva brottsförutsättningarna för framkallande av fara för annan.

Trots att professionen bedömer risken för överföring av hiv vara försumbar vid välinställd hiv även vid oskyddade samlag fortsätter åklagare att famla när det gäller vilka gärningar som skall leda till åtal och vilka brott som åtalas för. Vissa åklagare väljer till exempel att åtala personer som lever med hiv, med välinställd behandling, utan uppsåt att överföra hiv och där ingen överföring skett för försök till misshandel vilket varken är rimligt eller korrekt.

RFSU, RFSL och Hiv-Sverige önskar riktlinjer från RÅ till landets åklagare som tar hänsyn till de stora medicinska framgångar som gjorts och det kunskapsunderlag som finns, för att skapa en rimlighet i hur rättsväsendet hanterar denna redan utsatta grupp personer i vårt samhälle som lever med hiv.

More Advocacy Needed to Stop HIV Criminalisation

People living with HIV face increased criminalisation and prosecution based on their HIV status, finds a new report by the HIV Justice Network and the Global Network of People Living with HIV (GNP+).

HIV criminalisation is the application of the criminal law to people living with HIV based solely on their HIV status. This happens through HIV-specific criminal statutes, or by applying general criminal laws that allow for prosecution of unintentional HIV transmission, potential or perceived exposure to HIV without transmission, and/or non-disclosure of known HIV-positive status.

The use of criminal laws against people with HIV impacts entire communities. It perpetuates stigma, discrimination and feelings of fear, shame and anger towards people living with HIV.

“These laws and prosecutions do not only impact the people investigated, prosecuted, or incarcerated. These laws undermine core sexual rights and public health principles. Their existence and application exacerbate racial and gender inequalities and jeopardize critical HIV prevention and service delivery efforts” says Julian Hows of GNP+.

The report, Advancing HIV Justice 2: building momentum in global advocacy against HIV finds a total of 72 countries have adopted laws that specifically allow for HIV criminalisation. In these countries laws are either HIV-specific, or name HIV as one (or more) of the diseases covered by the law. Prosecutions for HIV non-disclosure, potential or perceived exposure and/or unintentional transmission have now been reported in 61 countries.

Of particular concern is the fact that 30 sub-Saharan African countries have now enacted overly broad and/or vague HIV specific statues enabling legal repercussions against people living with HIV. The report shows the highest number of prosecutions are being reported in Russia, the United States, Belarus and Canada.

The trend is in contrast with the latest science which shows that people with HIV who adhere to HIV treatment and have an undetectable viral load are not infectious. In addition this approach of the criminal law violates key legal and human rights principles.

HIV criminalisation does not exist in vacuum. It is often linked to punitive laws and policies that impact sexual and reproductive health and rights, especially those aimed at sex workers, current and former drug users (particularly people living with hepatitis C), transgender people and/or men who have sex with men and other sexual minorities.

Click here to read the new report and visit the  HIV Justice Network for more information on how you can get involved in the movement to eliminate HIV – or modernise – HIV criminalisation laws.

Justice Edwin Cameron: ‘Why HIV criminalisation is bad policy and why I’m proud that advocacy against it is being led by people living with HIV’

[This is the foreword to Advancing HIV Justice 2: Buiding momentum in global advocacy against HIV criminalisation, which will be published by the HIV Justice Network and GNP+ tomorrow, Tuesday May 10th.]

 

Since the beginning of the HIV epidemic, 35 long years ago, policymakers and politicians have been tempted to punish those of us with, and at risk of, HIV. Sometimes propelled by public opinion, sometimes themselves noxiously propelling public opinion, they have tried to find in punitive approaches a quick solution to the problem of HIV. One way has been to use HIV criminalisation – criminal laws against people living with HIV who don’t declare they have HIV, or to make potential or perceived exposure, or transmission that occurs when it is not deliberate (without “malice aforethought”), criminal offences.

Most of these laws are appallingly broad. And many of the prosecutions under them have been wickedly unjust. Sometimes scientific evidence about how HIV is transmitted, and how low the risk of transmitting the virus is, is ignored. And critical criminal legal and human rights principles are disregarded. These are enshrined in the International Guidelines on HIV and Human Rights. They are further developed by the UNAIDS guidance note, Ending overly-broad criminalisation of HIV non-disclosure, exposure and transmission: Critical scientific, medical and legal considerations. Important considerations, as these documents show, include foreseeability, intent, causality, proportionality, defence and proof.

The last 20 years have seen a massive shift in the management of HIV which is now a medically manageable disease. I know this myself: 19 years ago, when I was dying of AIDS, my life was given back to me when I was able to start taking antiretroviral medications. But despite the progress in HIV prevention, treatment and care, HIV continues to be treated exceptionally for one over-riding reason: stigma.

The enactment and enforcement of HIV-specific criminal laws – or even the threat of their enforcement – fuels the fires of stigma. It reinforces the idea that HIV is shameful, that it is a disgraceful contamination. And by reinforcing stigma, HIV criminalisation makes it more difficult for those at risk of HIV to access testing and prevention. It also makes it more difficult for those living with the virus to talk openly about it, and to be tested, treated and supported.

For those accused, gossiped about and maligned in the media, investigated, prosecuted and convicted, these laws can have catastrophic consequences. These include enforced disclosures, miscarriages of justice, and ruined lives.

HIV criminalisation is bad, bad policy. There is simply no evidence that it works. Instead, it sends out misleading and stigmatising messages. It undermines the remarkable scientific advances and proven public health strategies that open the path to vanquishing AIDS by 2030.

In 2008, on the final day of the International AIDS Conference in Mexico City, I called for a sustained and vocal campaign against HIV criminalisation. Along with many other activists, I hoped that the conference would result in a major international pushback against misguided criminal laws and prosecutions.

The Advancing HIV Justice 2 report shows how far we have come. It documents how the movement against these laws and prosecutions – burgeoning just a decade ago – is gaining strength. It is achieving some heartening outcomes. Laws have been repealed, modernised or struck down across the globe – from Australia to the United States, Kenya to Switzerland.

For someone like me, who has been living with HIV for over 30 years, it is especially fitting to note that much of the necessary advocacy has been undertaken by civil society led by individuals and networks of people living with HIV.

Advancing HIV Justice 2 highlights many of these courageous and pragmatic ventures by civil society. Not only have they monitored the cruelty of criminal law enforcement, acting as watchdogs, they have also played a key role in securing good sense where it has prevailed in the epidemic. This publication provides hope that lawmakers intending to enact laws propelled by populism and irrational fears can be stopped. Our hope is that outdated laws and rulings can be dispensed with altogether.

Yet this report also reminds us of the complexity of our struggle. Our ultimate goal – to end HIV criminalisation using reason and science – seems clear. But the pathways to attaining that goal are not always straightforward. We must be steadfast. We must be pragmatic. Our response to those who unjustly criminalise us must be evidence-rich and policy-sound. And we can draw strength from history. Other battles appeared “unwinnable” and quixotic. Think of slavery, racism, homophobia, women’s rights. Yet in each case justice and rationality have gained the edge.

That, we hope and believe, will be so, too, with laws targeting people with HIV for prosecution.

Edwin Cameron, Constitutional Court of South Africa, May 2016.

US/Canada: Elton John AIDS Foundation on why they support civil society organisations working to end HIV criminalisation

Australia: Queensland people living with HIV organisation, QPP, issues position statement on HIV criminalisation (press release)

Queensland Positive People (QPP) is a peer-based advocacy organisation which is committed to actively promoting self-determination and empowerment for all people living with HIV (PLHIV) throughout Queensland.

Below is their press release issued on 6 April 2016 in the light of the recent High Court ruling related to intent in HIV transmission cases.

Position Statement

The criminal law is an ineffective and inappropriate tool to address HIV non-disclosure, exposure or transmission. International best practice acknowledges that public health frameworks are best placed to encourage a shared responsibility for HIV transmission, and public health interventions seek to effect change in risk-taking behaviour among those who have difficulty taking appropriate precautions to prevent the transmission of HIV.

Urgent legal review of State and National guidelines for determining if an individual poses a reckless risk of HIV transmission is required following the scientific acceptance that PLHIV on treatment with an undetectable viral load pose a negligible risk of transmitting HIV via sexual intercourse. Despite scientific consensus on this issue, Australian criminal law has failed to acknowledge the contemporary science of HIV transmission and instead relies on incorrect, out of date and stigmatising perspectives of HIV that do not acknowledge that with proper adherence to HIV medication, it is a manageable chronic illness with a full life expectancy.

To explain why Australian criminal law lags behind United Nation recommendations and criminalises HIV transmission, Cipri Martinez, President of the National Association of People with HIV Australia (NAPWHA) states “stigma, fear and discriminatory perceptions of HIV influence the decision to proceed with criminal charges– a statement clearly evidenced by a lack of criminal prosecution or media attention regarding the transmission of other notifiable conditions such as syphilis or hepatitis.” HIV is treatable, but criminal charges perpetuate the inaccurate position that HIV is still a death sentence and therefore deserving of a severe punishment.

Current Status

A decision has been handed down in the High Court regarding a Queensland criminal HIV transmission case.

Whilst inappropriate to comment on the specifics of the case, the NAPWHA and Queensland Positive People (QPP) highlight that the trying of HIV transmission through the courts is a complex and fraught issue.

The overly broad use of the criminal law has far reaching negative impacts upon the HIV response. In line with UNAIDS guidance, NAPWHA and QPP urge that any application of the criminal law in the context of HIV must not undermine public health objectives.

Cipri Martinez states that “The use of the criminal law in responding to HIV transmission has been widely regarded as a blunt and ineffective tool with adverse implications for public health. In line with the recommendations of the UN Global Commission on HIV and the Law, the criminal law should only be reserved for cases where an individual exhibits clear malicious intent to transmit HIV with the purpose of causing harm.”

“There are alternatives to the criminal justice system to address HIV transmission or allegations that a person living with HIV is placing other people at risk of HIV, such as public health legislation” Martinez said.

Public health interventions are intended to prioritise education; support behaviour change; provide management as required; and actively utilise affected communities as a far more effective alternative to punitive and stigmatising legal sanctions.

NAPWHA and QPP support HIV prevention strategies being driven by an evidence-based, best practice model of public health interventions.

Criminalising HIV transmission sends unbalanced messages about the shared responsibility for prevention, creates disincentives for people to get tested and does, in fact, discourage disclosure of HIV status. These outcomes undermine prevention efforts and actually increase the risk of further HIV transmission.

Criminalising transmission does not acknowledge the complex factors that may impact an individual’s ability to disclose status or take the necessary precautions to prevent HIV transmission.

QPP President, Mark Counter agrees with NAPWHA’s position, saying “Public health interventions acknowledge the complex factors unique to each case, such as power imbalances, impairment, discrimination or other social determinants of health that may confuse or limit an individual’s ability to prevent transmission.”

National and State HIV strategies have identified the shared goals of achieving virtual elimination of HIV transmission in Australia by 2020.

“We are all working towards the shared goal of reducing HIV transmissions. The only way we are going to achieve this goal is by continuing to implement evidence-based human rights responses to HIV. These responses include educating the public about HIV and empowering people to avoid transmission or live successfully with HIV. The broad use of the criminal law does not help us achieve these goals” Counter says.

We need to be expanding programs which have been proven to reduce HIV transmission whilst protecting the human rights of people living with HIV and those who are HIV negative. Further, we need to encourage and empower people living with an unknown status to get tested and to ensure HIV prevention services are available to all that need them.

One of the unfortunate side effects of criminal prosecutions is the misinformed and stigmatising media that can accompany the reporting of these cases.

“We call on media outlets to appropriately report on HIV transmission cases with facts and not fear. Inaccurate statements not only undermine our efforts to educate the public about HIV, but also create an environment of fear for people living with HIV or people thinking about testing. It is vital that we encourage people to test – not discourage or frighten them from testing” Counter said.

For assistance in reporting appropriately on HIV, journalists should refer to the Australian Federation of AIDS Organisations HIV Media Guide.

France: National Aids Council President, Patrick Yeni, on why HIV criminalisation remains a problem for France

A year ago, in April 2015, the French National AIDS and Viral Hepatitis Council (Conseil national du sida et des hépatites virales, known simply as ‘CNS’) following extensive research into the law, nature of complaints and prosecutions, and their impact, issued a report, opinion and recommendations.

An English language version of the report, opinion and subsequent recommendations is still being prepared.

Earlier this year, Professor Patrick Yeni (pictured), chair of the CNS, was interviewed by Jean-François Laforgerie on the French language HIV website, seronet.info. His interview is eye-opening and powerful.

It highlights that although they had only found 23 convictions up to the end of 2014, surveys of people living with HIV suggest that up to 2000 complaints may have been made since the start of the epidemic.

The survey shows that slightly more than one person living with HIV in ten claims to have been tempted to complain against the person that they believed to be the source of infection. According to the same source, 1.4% of people living with HIV surveyed reported having actually complained. Based on these figures, we estimate an order of magnitude from 1 500 to 2 000 complaints that could be filed in total since the beginning of the epidemic.

He also notes that the law currently only recognises condom use as a way to show lack of a guilty mind, and he and his colleagues are concerned that up-to-date science is not reflected in the law. He also highlights that in France disclosure of known HIV-positive status – and subsequent consent to ‘risky’ sex – is not actually a defence, although in practice only cases where no disclosure took place and where no condoms were used have reached the court.

It seems unthinkable that what is obvious in terms of public health today on the promotion of biomedical preventions is lagging behind legally.

Given the importance of this body of work, we have decided to publish the interview and a summary of the main CNS recommendations beneath it, despite no official English translation.

It is interesting that the people who complain and go to trial are not part of the so-called risk groups where prevalence is high. For example, there is virtually no migrants among the complainants. Moreover, today there is a much greater legalisation of intimacy, including sexual facts than existed in the past. Perhaps this plays on the fact that people complain more now than twenty years ago.

Below is the English translation of the seronet.info interview, further improved from Google translate’s version by Sylvie Beaumont. Version anglaise via Google translate. Le texte français est après la traduction.

Q: In 2006, the National AIDS and viral hepatitis Council (CNS) published their review of the criminalisation of HIV transmission. What led you to work again on this issue and publish, in 2015, a second opinion?

Patrick Yeni [PY]: The media coverage of some trials in France and, secondly, the situation internationally. In other countries, there was an active debate on the criminalisation of HIV transmission, while in France this reflection seemed stalled. These are the two reasons that led us to revisit this issue, trying to understand and think about how things had changed since our first review.

Q: In your 2015 recommendations, you noted that the attention paid to legal, ethical and health issues relating to criminalisation of HIV transmission was low, both on the part of public authorities and civil society actors. How do you explain that?

PY: We have no clear answer to that. This is also why we wanted to restart the debate. If one takes the point of view of government and we take stock of court cases – 23 convictions for HIV transmission since the beginning of the epidemic throughout France – one can imagine that for the state this is not a national major problem at the criminal level, at least quantitatively. I guess the debate on criminal justice focuses primarily on other issues. For HIV organisations, it is probably more complicated because legal proceedings – as we attempt to analyse them in the recommendations – somewhat undermined the historical foundations on which the fight against HIV is based. By that I mean solidarity between people living with HIV and the refusal to distinguish between “patients as victims” allegedly infected and others who simply became infected. I imagine that this problem could have induced some inertia in advancing the debate. One recommendation from the CNS is to urge organisations to resume this discussion today, because it is a lever to act on issues of stigma, discrimination … and HIV prevention in general.

Q: What is prosecuted today? And what is a crime under the law?

PY: Primarily the fact that a person who knows s/he is HIV-positive, transmits HIV to a partner while s/he has not taken preventive measures to prevent this, i.e used a condom. In almost all trials in France, this is what has been prosecuted. We have had discussions on other issues as lawyers who supported us explained that the scope of what could be prosecuted or what could be an offence is probably wider than what is actually applied today.

Q: What are you referring to?

PY: One must think on several levels. The first criterion is that they are people who know they are HIV-positive. But it’s more complicated. Thus, from a legal point of view, we cannot know that a person, while not knowing officially that they are HIV-positive would consider themselves to be negative while they are engaged in repeated risky sexual behaviour. Justice may consider that even if they did not know their status officially, their sexual behaviour should have pushed them to consider themselves as potentially HIV-positive, and therefore to do a test and take preventive measures. In this case, the absence of screening does not guarantee the absence of criminal risk. The second criterion is that there must be proof that the person has transmitted HIV. Our analysis of judgments shows that exposing someone to HIV transmission, even without actual transmission can also be penalised. There have been convictions in France for exposure to the risk of transmission. This has occurred in the case of additional convictions to convictions for actual transmission, but it exists.

Q: So you think we could one day have a conviction on the sole ground of the risk of exposure to HIV transmission?

PY: Yes. The legal elements are there. That is, according to our analysis, another possibility of expanding the criminal field. The third criterion is that the ‘victim’ is not aware of the HIV status of their partner. In criminal law, whether or not the victim is informed does not exempt the defendant from liability. One cannot argue that the partner was informed and has agreed not to protect themselves and therefore would not be responsible. The information is not enough.

Fourth criterion. In all cases today, sexual prevention is understood as the use of condoms. It is the condom which is retained as the manifestation of concerns relating to the risk of transmission. We do not know what will happen when there will be proceedings for transmission or exposure by people who do not use condoms, but are treated effectively. Some lawyers have told us that if there was transmission despite condom use, it would be a case of force majeure which is exculpatory of responsibility. We can not guarantee the same thing about treatment. In other words, even with a good track treatment, a viral load of less than 20 copies, one cannot guarantee that there is not occasionally a little HIV in semen … and therefore transmission is possible even if  treatment is adhered to, and viral load is undetectable … other lawyers tell us that we are, in this case, in a random situation, which does not exempt the person with HIV from responsibility. We must think about this. It seems unthinkable that what is obvious in terms of public health today on the promotion of biomedical preventions is lagging behind legally. This is a warning that we mention in the recommendation. But unfortunately we fear that this debate will only take place when a case of transmission from someone on effective treatment will come to court.

Q: How do you explain that the role of treatment as prevention is recognised in Switzerland with all the legal consequences that this entails, and yet the same argument does not hold legally with us?

PY: We wanted to alert on this point precisely so the conclusions of judges, when they have to decide, are identical to the public health conclusions we know today. We must not get to this contradiction where a person who is effectively treated is found guilty because s/he would not use a condom. With these examples, we can see the narrow scope of what is actually prosecuted and that it is imperative to have a debate on the possible expansion of what is a crime.

Q: The argument is often made that further criminalisation would deter people from testing?

PY: The review analysed the consequences of the criminalisation of HIV transmission on testing. All the studies to which we had access, mainly foreign, do not indicate that criminal risk linked to knowing one’s status would lead to decreased use of testing.

Q: You note the paradox that legal proceedings have developed in a context of “normalisation” of the disease. In other words, cases flourished in the 2000s, after the most acute phase of the epidemic. How do you explain it?

PY: We had discussions about it. Some of us were reluctant to say that there was an increase in the number of cases. One thing is certain, we are on a low figure: 23 convictions. Especially if we compare the data of the ANRS-Vespa 2 survey. The survey shows that slightly more than one person living with HIV in ten claims to have been tempted to complain against the person that they believed to be the source of infection. According to the same source, 1.4% of people living with HIV surveyed reported having actually complained. Based on these figures, we estimate an order of magnitude from 1,500 to 2,000 complaints that could be filed in total since the beginning of the epidemic. We do not know why some complaints were accepted and others not, why some were eventually classified and others have prospered. We have, unfortunately, no way to evaluate it. We just know that few cases reach a conviction.

To respond more specifically, one must take into account the fact that there is a significant delay, sometimes ten years from the time a complaint is filed to the time when an appeal judgment is pronounced. It might be possible to say that today there is an increase in the number of procedures, but it is not certain. We must be careful about this point. If this is true, how can we explain it? One hypothesis is that in the early days of the epidemic, when many people died of AIDS, a complaint against a person who was likely to die did not make much sense. Today the situation is different. For people, this may appear more “logical” to do so. We advance this hypothesis, but we don’t have the figures to confirm it. One can also look at who is complaining. It is interesting that the people who complain and go to trial are not part of the so-called risk groups where prevalence is high. For example, there is virtually no migrants among the complainants. Moreover, today there is a much greater legalisation of intimacy, including sexual facts than existed in the past. Perhaps this plays on the fact that people complain more now than twenty years ago.

Q: What goals did you set by publishing this new advice?

PY: Firstly: to inform people living with HIV about the conditions under which their criminal responsibility may be engaged. Our thinking has focused on being able to contribute to a fair justice. How? By raising awareness of the investigators in this matter through the National Schools of Police and Gendarmerie. By working with judges and lawyers. It is not possible for judges to have the technical knowledge about different diseases, we admit. Similarly, we can not consider today that under the pretext that people no longer die of AIDS, HIV is commonplace. This is not possible even today because there is a context of social representations that make it a special disease. However, the situation is not the same today, in particular medical progress has taken place. It is very important that judges and lawyers are aware of this. We propose that the National School of Magistrates opens this debate in its initial training as well as in continuing education. We asked the school director to include a discussion on HIV in its knowledge training. A problem that does not concern judges, is that of upgrading one’s knowledge to contribute to a fair trial. One of our wishes is also to allow a reflection on the position of criminal justice. Prison sentences predominate in cases of HIV transmission and issues of rehabilitation and prevention of relapses are not taken into account, even though the court must ensure both aspects in its approach.

Q: Specifically what do you recommend?

PY: For the Department of Justice to develop a form of observatory monitoring  of judgments, to document the characteristics of procedures. The tool does not exist and we had to carry out considerable work to realise our new advice and to find all cases that resulted in convictions. We must create an interdepartmental committee to work on the development and provision of information tools tailored to professional (police, lawyers, judges) and other persons concerned, so that the procedures take account of available scientific and medical data, and for doctors to be better informed about the criminal risk of HIV transmission. It’s lobbying work which we pursue, including with HIV organisations. They must reclaim this question on which they were at a standby. We must recognise that the right to resort to justice is a right for all citizens, that our struggle is not against criminal law, but rather to ensure a fair process and prevent risks of criminalisation.

Summary of the CNS’s 2015 recommendations on HIV criminalisation

No. Objectives Recommendations Competent authorities

and/or recommendation targets
1 Contribute to better information of judges Promote initial and continuing education of magistrates and future magistrates on HIV related issues French National School for the Judiciary (école nationale de la magistrature)
2 Bolster the quality of police investigations Promote training actions of police officers and future officers on HIV related issues Ministry of the Interior
3 Prevent reoffending, enable the integration and reintegration of convicted people and improve their support Apply alternatives to custodial sentences Ministry of Justice
4 Promote the prevention of the prosecution risk Contribute to a better understanding of legal issues by the people and communities concerned HIV/AIDS associations
Support actions aiming to provide information on the legal rights and responsibilities of people living with HIV. Ministry of HealthFrench National Institute for Health Prevention and Education (INPES)
Promote actions to fight PLHIV stigmatisation and discrimination and prevention actions towards the general population Ministry of Health, Regional Health Agencies (ARS), French National Institute for Health Prevention and Education (INPES)Other competent ministriesHIV/AIDS associations
5 Provide access to up-to-date and high-quality legal and scientific information Implement a reporting tool to follow-up the rulings issued in France and to document the characteristics of the related proceedings Ministry of Justice
Initiate the creation of a working group in charge of designing and provisioning of information tools suitable for professionals and people involved Health/Justice Interministerial Committee

 

 

Article original

PÉNALISATION DE LA TRANSMISSION DU VIH : GARANTIR UNE PROCÉDURE ÉQUITABLE

Où en est-on aujourd’hui en France sur la pénalisation de la transmission de VIH ? Le professeur Patrick Yéni, président du Conseil national du sida (CNS) fait le point. Interview.

In 2006, le Conseil national du sida et des hépatites virales (CNS) avait publié un premier avis sur la pénalisation de la transmission du VIH. Qu’est-ce qui vous a conduit à travailler de nouveau sur ce sujet et à publier, en 2015, un second avis ?

Patrick Yeni : Il y a la médiatisation de certains procès en France et, d’autre part, le constat sur le plan international, dans d’autres pays concernés, qu’il y avait une réflexion active sur la pénalisation de la transmission de l’infection par le VIH alors qu’en France cette réflexion semblait marquer le pas. Ce sont ces deux raisons qui nous ont conduits à retravailler sur cette question, en essayant de comprendre et de réfléchir à la façon dont les choses avaient évolué, depuis notre premier avis.

Dans l’avis de 2015, vous jugez que l’attention apportée aux enjeux juridiques, éthiques et sanitaires de la pénalisation de la transmission est faible, tant de la part des pouvoirs publics que des acteurs associatifs. Comment l’expliquez-vous ?

Nous n’avons pas de réponse claire à cela. C’est aussi pour cela que nous avons voulu reprendre cette réflexion. Si l’on se place du point de vue des pouvoirs publics et que l’on fait le bilan des affaires judiciaires — soit 23 condamnations pour transmission du VIH depuis le début de l’épidémie pour toute la France —,  on peut imaginer que pour l’Etat il ne s’agit pas là d’un problème majeur national au niveau pénal, du moins sur le plan quantitatif. J’imagine que la réflexion sur la justice pénale porte prioritairement sur d’autres questions. Pour les associations de lutte contre le sida, c’est probablement plus compliqué parce que les procédures judiciaires — comme nous essayons de l’analyser dans l’avis — mettent quelque peu à mal les fondements historiques de la lutte contre le VIH. Je citerai la solidarité entre les personnes atteintes et le refus de distinguer entre des “malades victimes” qui auraient été contaminés et d’autres qui se seraient infectés. J’imagine que cette difficulté a pu introduire de l’inertie dans la progression de la réflexion. C’est justement une recommandation du CNS que d’exhorter les associations à reprendre aujourd’hui cette réflexion, parce qu’elle constitue un bras de levier pour agir sur les stigmatisations, les discriminations… et la prévention en général.

Qu’est-ce qui est condamné aujourd’hui ? Et qu’est-ce qui est condamnable sur le plan pénal ?

C’est avant tout le fait pour une personne qui se sait séropositive d’avoir transmis le VIH à un ou une partenaire alors qu’elle n’avait pas pris de mesure de prévention pour prévenir cette transmission, en l’occurrence l’utilisation de préservatif. Dans la quasi-totalité des procès en France, c’est cela qui est condamné. Nous avons eu des réflexions sur d’autres points car les juristes qui nous ont accompagnés ont expliqué que le champ de ce qui est condamnable, de ce qui pourrait représenter un délit, est sans doute plus large que celui qui est effectivement appliqué aujourd’hui.

A quoi faites-vous référence ?

Il faut raisonner sur plusieurs niveaux. Le premier critère retenu est que ce sont des personnes qui se savent séropositives. Mais c’est plus compliqué. Ainsi, d’un point de vue juridique, on ne peut assurer qu’une personne bien que ne se sachant pas formellement séropositive puisse se considérer comme séronégative alors qu’elle est engagée dans des comportements sexuels à risques, répétés. La justice peut considérer que même si elle ne sait pas de façon formelle quel est son statut, son comportement sexuel aurait du l’inciter à se considérer comme potentiellement séropositive, donc à se tester et à mettre en œuvre des moyens de prévention. Dans ce cas, l’absence de dépistage ne garantit pas l’absence de risque pénal. Le deuxième critère est qu’il faut la preuve que la personne ait transmis le VIH. Notre analyse des jugements montre que le fait d’exposer à la transmission du VIH, même sans transmission effective, peut également être pénalisé. Il y a eu des condamnations en France pour exposition au risque de transmission. Cela s’est produit dans des cas de condamnations additionnelles à des condamnations pour transmission effective, mais cela existe.

Vous estimez donc qu’on pourrait se trouver un jour avec une condamnation au seul motif du risque d’exposition à la transmission du VIH ?

Oui. Les éléments juridiques sont là. C’est, selon notre analyse, une autre possibilité d’élargissement du champ pénal. Le troisième critère est le fait que la victime ne soit pas informée de la séropositivité du ou de la partenaire. En droit pénal, le fait que la victime soit informée ou pas n’exonère pas le prévenu de sa responsabilité. On ne peut pas arguer que le partenaire était informé et qu’il a accepté de ne pas se protéger et donc qu’on ne serait pas responsable. L’information ne suffit pas.

Quatrième critère. Dans toutes les affaires aujourd’hui, la prévention des rapports sexuels est comprise comme l’usage du préservatif. C’est le préservatif qui est retenu comme la manifestation de la préoccupation face au risque de transmission. Nous ne savons pas ce qui se passera lorsqu’il y aura des procédures engagées pour transmission ou exposition concernant des personnes qui n’utilisent pas de préservatifs, mais qui sont traitées efficacement. Certains juristes nous ont expliqué que s’il y avait transmission malgré l’usage du préservatif, il s’agirait d’un cas de force majeure qui est exonératoire de la responsabilité. On ne peut pas garantir la même chose concernant le traitement. Autrement dit, avec un traitement bien suivi, une charge virale dans le sang inférieure à 20 copies, on ne peut pas garantir qu’il n’y ait pas de temps en temps un peu de VIH dans le sperme… et donc qu’une transmission soit possible même si le traitement est bien suivi, la charge virale indétectable… D’autres juristes nous disent que nous sommes, dans ce cas-là, dans une situation d’aléa, qui, elle, n’est pas exonératoire de la responsabilité. Nous devons réfléchir à cela. Il paraîtrait impensable que ce qui est une évidence en termes de santé publique aujourd’hui sur la promotion des préventions biomédicales, soit en décalage sur le plan juridique. C’est un motif d’alerte que nous mentionnons dans l’avis. Mais il est à craindre malheureusement que cette réflexion n’ait lieu que le jour où un cas de transmission concernant une personne sous traitement efficace vienne au tribunal.

Comment expliquer que le rôle du Tasp dans la protection du rapport soit reconnu en Suisse avec toutes les conséquences juridiques que cela implique et que ce même argument ne tienne pas juridiquement chez nous ?

Nous avons souhaité alerter sur ce point afin que justement les conclusions de la justice, lorsqu’elle aura à se prononcer, soient identiques aux conclusions de santé publique que nous connaissons aujourd’hui. Nous ne devons pas arriver à cette contradiction qu’une personne qui se traiterait efficacement soit condamnée parce qu’elle n’utiliserait pas le préservatif. Avec ces exemples, on voit bien l’espace assez restreint de ce qui est effectivement condamné aujourd’hui et le fait qu’il faut absolument avoir une réflexion sur le possible élargissement de ce qui est condamnable.

L’argument est souvent avancé qu’un engagement plus avant dans la pénalisation dissuaderait les personnes de faire le dépistage ?

L’avis a analysé les conséquences de la pénalisation de la transmission en matière de recours au dépistage. Toutes les études auxquelles nous avons eu accès, essentiellement étrangères, n’indiquent pas que le risque pénal lié à la connaissance de son statut sérologique conduirait à une diminution du recours au dépistage.

Vous notez le paradoxe que les recours en justice se sont développés dans un contexte de “normalisation” de la maladie. Autrement dit, les affaires ont prospéré dans les années 2000, postérieurement à la phase la plus aigüe de l’épidémie. Comment l’expliquez-vous ?

Nous avons eu des discussions à ce sujet. Certains d’entre nous étaient réticents à affirmer qu’il y avait une augmentation du nombre de cas. Une chose est sûre, nous sommes sur un chiffre bas : 23 condamnations. D’autant plus si on le rapporte aux données de l’enquête ANRS-Vespa 2. L’enquête montre qu’un peu plus d’une personne vivant avec le VIH sur dix déclare avoir été tentée de porter plainte contre la personne qu’elle estimait être à l’origine de sa contamination. Selon la même source, 1,4 % des personnes vivant avec le VIH interrogées déclaraient avoir effectivement porté plainte. Sur la base de ces chiffres, nous avons estimé un ordre de grandeur de 1 500 à 2 000 plaintes qui auraient pu être déposées au total depuis le début de l’épidémie. Nous ne savons pas pourquoi certaines plaintes ont été acceptées et d’autres pas, pourquoi certaines ont finalement été classées et d’autres ont prospéré. Nous n’avons, hélas, aucun moyen d’évaluer cela. Nous savons juste que peu d’affaires arrivent à une condamnation.

Pour répondre plus précisément, il faut prendre en compte le fait qu’il y a un délai important, parfois dix ans, entre le moment où une plainte est déposée et celui où un jugement en appel est prononcé. Dire qu’aujourd’hui nous sommes sur une augmentation du nombre de procédures, c’est possible, mais pas certain. Nous devons être prudents sur ce point. Si c’est vrai, comment l’expliquer ? Une des hypothèses, c’est qu’aux premiers temps de l’épidémie, lorsque beaucoup de monde décédait du sida, porter plainte contre une personne qui allait sans doute mourir n’avait pas grand sens. Aujourd’hui, la situation est différente. Pour des personnes, cela peut apparaître plus “logique” de le faire. Nous avançons cette hypothèse, mais aucun chiffre ne permet de la confirmer. On peut aussi regarder quels sont ceux qui portent plainte. C’est intéressant de voir que les personnes qui portent plainte et arrivent au procès ne font pas partie des groupes dits à risques où la prévalence est très forte. Par exemple, il n’y a quasiment pas de personnes migrantes parmi les plaignants. Par ailleurs, il existe aujourd’hui une judiciarisation bien plus importante de l’intime, notamment des faits sexuels, qu’elle n’existait dans le passé. Peut-être cela joue-t-il dans le fait de porter plainte plus aujourd’hui qu’il y a vingt ans.

Quels objectifs vous êtes-vous fixés en publiant ce nouvel avis ?

Tout d’abord : informer les personnes vivant avec le VIH sur les conditions dans lesquelles leur responsabilité pénale peut être engagée. Notre réflexion a surtout porté sur le fait de pouvoir contribuer à une justice équitable. Par quels moyens ? Par une sensibilisation des enquêteurs à cette question par les écoles nationales de police et de gendarmerie. Par un travail auprès des magistrats et des avocats. Il n’est pas possible que les juges aient des connaissances techniques sur les différentes maladies, nous l’admettons. De la même façon, on ne peut pas considérer aujourd’hui, au prétexte qu’on ne meure plus du sida, que l’infection par le VIH est banale. Ce n’est pas possible parce qu’il existe un contexte de représentations sociales qui en font une maladie particulière. Pour autant, la situation n’est plus la même aujourd’hui, des progrès notamment médicaux ont eu lieu. C’est très important que les magistrats et les avocats aient connaissance de cela. Nous proposons que l’Ecole nationale de la magistrature ouvre cette réflexion dans sa formation initiale, comme dans sa formation continue. Nous avons sollicité le directeur de cette école pour lui demander d’inclure une réflexion autour du VIH dans la formation des connaissances. Un problème, qui ne concerne pas que les juges, est celui de la mise à niveau des connaissances pour contribuer à une justice équitable. Un de nos souhaits est aussi de permettre de réfléchir à la position de la justice pénale. Les peines de prison ferme prédominent dans les affaires de transmission du VIH et les questions de réinsertion et de prévention de la récidive ne sont pas du tout prises en compte, alors même que la justice doit veiller à ces deux aspects dans sa démarche.

Concrètement que préconisez-vous ?

Pour le ministère de la Justice, de se doter d’une forme d’observatoire de suivi des jugements rendus, de documenter les caractéristiques des procédures. L’outil n’existe pas et nous avons dû effectuer un travail considérable pour réaliser notre nouvel avis et retrouver tous les cas ayant abouti à des condamnations. Il faut créer un comité interministériel pour qu’il travaille à la création et la mise à disposition d’outils d’information adaptés aux professionnels (policiers, avocats, magistrats) et aux personnes concernées, pour que les procédures tiennent compte des données scientifiques et médicales disponibles, pour que les médecins soient mieux informés sur le risque pénal de la transmission du VIH. C’est du travail de lobbying que nous menons, y compris auprès des associations de lutte contre le sida. Elles doivent se réapproprier cette question, sur laquelle elles étaient un peu en situation de veille. Nous devons admettre que le droit au recours à la justice est un droit des citoyens, que notre combat n’est pas contre la justice pénale, mais plutôt pour garantir une procédure équitable et prévenir le risque pénal.

Propos recueillis par Jean-François Laforgerie.

Australia: Analysis of the limitations of scientific evidence to prove timing and direction of alleged HIV transmission in three criminal trials

This article by Paul Kidd in the March 2016 issue of HIV Australia examines the use of HIV phylogenetic analysis in three Australian criminal trials. It argues that courts in Australia appear to accept forensic evidence uncritically. As the forensic methodology used in phylogenetic analysis is inherently limited, it argues there is risk of miscarriage of justice where this type of evidence forms a substantial part of the prosecution case.

Read the full article at: https://www.afao.org.au/library/hiv-australia/volume-14/vol-14-no-1/phylogenetic-analysis-as-expert-evidence-in-hiv-transmission-prosecutions