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: Activists challenge Ontario's Premier to intervene in unjust prosecutions
Banner drop! Stop criminalizing people living with HIV!
STOP THE WITCH-HUNT:
Activists drop banner with message to Ontario Premier
during Toronto Pride parade
TORONTO, July 3, 2016 —This afternoon, as the Ontario Premier marched in the country’s largest Pride parade, AIDS ACTION NOW! (www.aidsactionnow.org) dropped a huge banner overlooking Yonge Street, calling on Kathleen Wynne to “stop criminalizing people with HIV.”
Ontario continues to lead Canadian provinces in charges against people living with HIV for not disclosing their status, even when they have taken precautions to protect their partners, when there is little to no risk of transmission, and when no transmission has taken place. People are being prosecuted for aggravated sexual assault, one of the most serious charges under the Criminal Code. Conviction carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment and a mandatory designation as a sex offender for a minimum of 20 years. Analysis of prosecutions shows a disproportionate number of charges against racialized people and a growing number against vulnerable women.
Overly broad criminalization is not only unjust, it also undermines public health. Fear of being criminalized discourages people from testing for HIV or seeking counselling. Fear of prosecution also makes it more difficult for people to disclose their status. This can contribute to the spread of HIV. Two years ago, nearly 80 of Canada’s leading HIV scientists issued a ground-breaking consensus statement reviewing the scientific evidence about HIV transmission risk and expressing their concern about the increasing divergence between that science and the overly broad use of the criminal law.
In 2010, Ontario’s then-Attorney General Chris Bentley committed to developing guidelines to limit such prosecutions. Six years later, his Ministry still refuses to develop guidelines to this effect. Meanwhile, Crown attorneys in Ontario continue to pursue such cases and even seek to expand the circumstances in which people can be convicted. This is not in the public interest.
We call on Premier Wynne to intervene. Her Attorney General must instruct Crown attorneys to respect scientific evidence about HIV transmission and stop unnecessary, unjust prosecutions which undermine public health efforts to control the spread of HIV.
– 30 –
For further information:
▪ AIDS ACTION NOW!: Darien Taylor (Sunday, July 3, only), 416-516-3147
▪ For legal background: Richard Elliott, Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network, 416 898 3313
▪ For a timeline on efforts to engage the Ministry of the Attorney General: www.clhe.ca
Webinar: HIV Criminalization Attitudes and Opinions of the American Public (Sero, 2016)
Presenters: Sean Strub and Dr. Rosita Thomas
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.
US: Second HIV is not a crime training academy creates an important intersectional shift in the US anti-HIV criminalisation movement
The second HIV Is Not a Crime Training Academy, which took place in May at the University of Alabama, Huntsville, brought together more than 300 advocates from 34 US states, as well delegations from Canada and Mexico.
Organised jointly by two of our HIV JUSTICE WORLDWIDE partners, the Sero Project and Positive Women’s Network–USA, the meeting was a unique opportunity for the people most affected by HIV criminalisation to take centre stage and have their voices be heard.
As Mark S King’s blog post highlighted in his blog and video produced the week following the meeting:
The intersections of race, gender, and sexuality were given as much weight as strategy sessions on working with legislators and lawyers, and the program repeatedly drove home the fact that criminalizing behaviors related to specific groups of people is as American as apple pie. Plenary speakers included advocates for women (including transgender women), current and former sex workers, immigration reform and drug legalization advocates, and, most powerfully, people who have been prosecuted under HIV criminalization statutes.
The theme of intersectionality and what it means for HIV criminalisation advocacy was further explored in this thoughtful analysis from Olivia Ford at The Body.com.
At the first HIV Is Not a Crime gathering in Grinnell, Iowa, in 2014, the sessions focused largely on unpacking the process of mounting a legislative campaign. Huntsville attendees also received training on important skills such as using data and collaborating with attorneys. The dominant theme, however, was the mandate to understand and combat HIV criminalization as a component of the system of over-policing and mass incarceration that disproportionately and unjustly impacts black people, queer folks, immigrants, drug users, sex workers, transgender individuals and those living with and without HIV at the intersections of this constellation of experiences.
The meeting was also an opportunity to celebrate the recent modernisation of Colorado’s HIV criminalisation statutes by the Colorado Mod Squad and their political allies, notably Senator Pat Steadman; and to hear from HIV criminalisation survivors and their families about what the HIV criminalisation – and the movement to end it – means for them personally.
The biggest political coup of the meeting was a welcome video from Hilary Clinton who said that if she wins the Presidential election, she will work to “reform outdated, stigmatising” HIV criminalisation laws.
Aside from those highlighted above, a number of other blog posts and articles have been produced since the meeting. As well as a fantastic Storify compilation by PWN-USA of social media produced during the four days, these include pieces from:
- HIV Plus Magazine
- Human Rights Campaign
- Poz.com (Mark S King interview with Sero’s Sean Strub)
- And participants including HIV criminalisation survivor Monique Howell-Moree; Gail Mahood; Jacob Anderson-Minshall; and Deondre B. Moore.
In addition, the HIV Justice Network was there with our video advocacy consultant, Nicholas Feustel of georgetown media, capturing the entire event on video, and we will be releasing a film providing a detailed overview of the entire meeting, as well as lessons learned, in the next few weeks.
Australia: Northern Territory AIDS & Hepatitis Council calls on government to engage in community consultation before debating the proposed amendments to the Police Administration Act that forces HIV, Hepatitis B & C blood testing of offenders
NT Aids and Hepatitis Council says amendments to Police Administration Act could breach civil liberties
The Northern Territory Government’s controversial push to have the Police Administration Act amended to have forced blood tests on those who spit, bite or exchange blood with officers has come under fire.
The NT’s peak representative body for people with blood-borne diseases, Northern Territory AIDS & Hepatitis Council, said yesterday that the amendments were in breach of civil liberties and human rights.
They are calling for the government today to stop and consult.
Community member Sam Bowden said less invasive options than drawing blood against someone’s will needed to be investigated.
“It is possible to develop sound public health policy based on the available evidence, that protects the health and well being of police officers and their families, and which upholds the human rights of HIV key affected populations – but governments have to consult the community to get the balance right,” she said.
Other concerns for the group were the facts that it could unfairly target homeless and indigenous people as well as further create a stigma around those living with blood-borne diseases.
A public education stall run by NTAHC will be out the front of parliament tomorrow from 9am to 4pm.
A petition to call on the Government to consult with the community before debating the amendment in parliament can be found at change.org
Originally published in NT News
Australia: Zaburoni v Queen legal analysis
This analysis is by David Buchanan SC, Barrister at Forbes Chambers, Sydney. It was originally published in LGBT Law Notes and is republished here with his permission.
In a case that should reduce the extent of overcharging in HIV criminal cases, the High Court of Australia (Australia’s apex court) has emphasised the importance of distinguishing between reckless behaviour and behaviour involving intention to transmit HIV.
In Zaburoni v The Queen [2016] HCA 12, a man was sentenced to nine and a half years in prison for unlawfully transmitting a serious diseases with intent to do so. The evidence was that Zaburoni frequently had unprotected sex with his girlfriend, knowing that he had HIV, and that he lied to her, and later to investigating police, about his status. However, the offence required proof of actual intention. The High Court held that, if the evidence had established Zaburoni’s awareness of the probability that his conduct would result in his girlfriend contracting HIV, it would have been open to the jury to infer that Zaburoni meant to bring about that result. However, the evidence did not rise to that level.
The Court distinguished between intention, on the one hand, and desire or motive, noting that a person can intend a result without desiring it. Thus a person can have the infection of their sex partner as a purpose of their conduct whilst regretting that consequence. The plurality observed “(t)he complainant said the appellant preferred unprotected sexual intercourse because it was more pleasurable. Accepting that the appellant engaged in unprotected sexual intercourse because it gave him pleasure is not necessarily inconsistent with proof that he also had the intention thereby of transmitting HIV to the complainant. It is the identification of evidence from which the latter inference could be drawn to the criminal standard that is the issue in this appeal.”
Zaburoni had tested positive to HIV and been told he must use condoms for sex. The evidence was that he understood that advice. But when he took up a relationship with a woman he told her he had been tested for HIV and was not HIV positive. He had unprotected intercourse with her, telling her that he found condomless sex more pleasurable. The complainant suffered seroconversion illness. Zaburoni told her his brother had died from AIDS. When the woman asked Zaburoni whether he had HIV, he said he did not.
The relationship later broke down. About a year afterwards, the woman was diagnosed with HIV/AIDS and when she tackled Zaburoni about it, he admitted he was infected and said he found out after they had broken up. She asked why he had failed to tell her of his condition. He replied that he had not wanted to make her unhappy and that he thought that she was having a good time. He said that he had been told by the doctors that he had had HIV for two years. A friend of the complainant asked Zaburoni why he had not told the complainant and he responded that “I didn’t want to ruin her life”.
Later, in both a conversation with the complainant monitored by police and in interviews with police, Zaburoni lied about when he knew he was infected and the extent of his unprotected sex with the complainant. Later Zaburoni, who had migrated to Australia many years previously, admitted having submitted a blood sample from an uninfected friend in order to satisfy Immigration authorities that he did not have HIV.
Although there was evidence that, given the length of the relationship (21 months), the risk of the complainant contracting HIV were about 14 per cent, there was no evidence that Zaburoni knew what the statistical likelihood was of the transmission of HIV as the result of unprotected heterosexual sex. The plurality said “To the extent that the inference of intent depends upon foresight of the risk of the sexual transmission of HIV, it is the appellant’s understanding, whether informed or otherwise, that is material. There was ample evidence from which to find that the appellant was aware of the risk of transmitting HIV to the complainant through unprotected sexual intercourse. Apart from the medical advice that the appellant was given by several doctors in 1998 after he learned of his HIV positive status, his lies to the complainant about that status before their sexual relationship commenced, and during the course of it, point to his awareness of the risk of sexual transmission. So, too, do his lies to the police about the number of times they engaged in unprotected sexual intercourse.”
The plurality concluded that “(a) rational inference open on the evidence is that the appellant engaged in regular unprotected sexual intercourse with the complainant because it enhanced his sexual pleasure and he was reckless of the risk of transmitting HIV to her. The existence of that inference lessens the force of reasoning to a conclusion that the appellant intended to transmit the disease from the fact of frequent unprotected sexual intercourse. Apart from frequent unprotected sexual intercourse, there is no evidence to support the inference that the appellant had that intention. And the evidence fell well short of proving that the appellant believed that it was virtually certain that he would pass on HIV by regular unprotected sexual intercourse.” In particular, none of the lies proved that Zaburoni knew that it was virtually certain that he would infect his partner with HIV if he had unprotected sex with her.
Whilst Zaburoni’s conduct was described as a form of “callous deception”, what this meant (as another judge put it) was that the evidence left open “a reasonable hypothesis that the appellant, not knowing the degree of risk, was extremely reckless and also callous. As appalling as his selfish recklessness was, it cannot be equated with a subjective, actual intent to transmit the HIV virus. In the absence of evidence of malice or knowledge of the degree of risk, a subjective intent to inflict the HIV virus was not proven beyond reasonable doubt.”
The conviction for intentionally transmitting a serious disease was quashed and a verdict of guilty of unlawfully doing grievous bodily harm substituted.
The full High Court decision can be accessed here.
A number of news reports and other analyses of the Zaburoni case can be found here.
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.