2025 in review: more reported cases, uneven reform

In 2025, HIV criminalisation remained a persistent, global human rights and public health failure – visible both in the rise in reported prosecutions and in the continued mismatch between HIV science and legal practice. Despite significant law reform momentum in several jurisdictions, we found evidence of unjust arrests, charges, and convictions reported in 27 countries. However, while the number of reported HIV criminalisation cases increased in 2025, this rise was driven largely by intensified enforcement and reporting in a limited number of countries, rather than a widening of criminalisation across new jurisdictions.

Rising case numbers concentrated in fewer countries

Our Global HIV Criminalisation Database included 112 reported cases between January 1st and December 31st, 2025. This represents the highest annual total recorded in the database in recent years – almost double the number documented in 2024, and more than twice the annual totals seen between 2021 and 2023.

A defining feature of 2025 was how strongly case reports clustered in specific countries. However, unless cases are systematically reported either in official, public-facing court databases, relying on media and/or civil society reported cases means we are only seeing the most visible portion of a much larger reality.

Nevertheless, one country – Uzbekistan – accounted for more than half of all reported cases. This is partly because Uzbek courts publish all HIV criminalisation cases online, but mainly due to an exceptionally broad and punitive legal framework combined with extensive mandatory HIV testing. Article 113 of the Criminal Code criminalises mere awareness of HIV status, with no distinction between exposure and transmission and no defences for condoms, viral suppression, or informed consent, creating a very low threshold for prosecution. Mandatory testing laws targeting key populations and returning migrants further increase detection without any link to alleged criminal conduct, resulting in more people being identified and prosecuted than anywhere else.

Alongside this, Russia and the United States continue to feature prominently in HIV criminalisation case reports, with the United Kingdom, France, South Korea and Canada represented by at least two reported cases in 2025.

Same harms, familiar forms

Across the 2025 cases list, several recurring patterns stood out:

Non-disclosure and “exposure” prosecutions remained the default legal response, with multiple non-disclosure prosecutions in the United States proceeding without allegations of transmission, and exposure-only cases continuing in Russia despite no demonstrated risk of harm.
Criminal cases disproportionately arose from contact between law enforcement and marginalised people – including gay men, sex workers, trans people, and people already in detention – illustrating how HIV criminalisation disproportionately arises in contexts shaped by stigma, surveillance, and law enforcement contact with marginalised communities.
Criminalisation extended beyond sexual contexts, with no-risk conduct framed as intentional harm, including spitting prosecutions in Canada and the United States, and prosecutions linked to needle or blood incidents in the United Kingdom and Brazil.
Cross-border consequences persisted even after legal “wins”, illustrated by Ireland’s deportation of a man whose conviction had been overturned by the Supreme Court, and by the persistent risk of immigration and residency consequences in Canada and the United States, where HIV-related prosecutions can have lasting effects beyond the criminal process itself.
Legacy criminalisation continued to create procedural chaos, as seen in Zimbabwe where prosecutions and litigation persisted despite the HIV criminalisation law having previously been repealed, and in countries such as Russia where outdated HIV-specific provisions continue to be applied alongside general criminal law, producing inconsistent charging practices.

Legal reform: progress alongside persistent risk

Despite a challenging political environment, 2025 saw several concrete legal and policy developments that signalled continued momentum toward reform, particularly at the sub-national level.

In the United States, state-level action remained the primary driver of change. In Maryland, the governor signed legislation repealing the state’s HIV-specific criminal statute, removing a law long criticised for its incompatibility with current scientific evidence. North Dakota also enacted legislation addressing outdated HIV criminalisation provisions, narrowing their scope and reducing the reach of HIV-specific penalties.

In Mexico, reform efforts continued across multiple jurisdictions. Baja California eliminated “danger of contagion” language from its criminal code, and advocacy to repeal or amend similar provisions continued in other states, alongside renewed engagement at the federal level.

In Ukraine, parliament approved the first reading of legislation to remove HIV criminalisation from the Criminal Code. While the law reform process has stalled in the context of ongoing conflict, the move towards repeal represents a significant legislative step and an important signal of political commitment under difficult circumstances.

Alongside these gains, 2025 also highlighted the fragility of reform and the persistence of resistance in several settings.

In Canada, frustration grew over the continued absence of comprehensive federal reform of HIV non-disclosure criminalisation. Despite longstanding commitments and extensive advocacy, progress remained stalled, reinforcing concerns about the ongoing misuse of the criminal law.

In Australia, debate intensified in South Australia and New South Wales around the use of mandatory or forced HIV testing powers. Public health experts and community advocates raised concerns about the scientific basis, proportionality, and potential harms of these approaches.

And the United States faced a renewed and deeply troubling risk of regression under the shadow of the Trump administration’s domestic and global anti-rights agenda. Proposals to expand sexually transmitted infection criminalisation – including legislative initiatives in Louisiana – signalled how rapidly decades of hard-won progress can be dismantled when punishment, surveillance, and moral regulation are reasserted as policy priorities. In this climate, HIV criminalisation once again becomes a ready tool of control, underscoring how fragile reform remains and how urgently sustained resistance is required.

Looking ahead to 2026

Legal reform is both possible and underway, yet unjust prosecutions persist – and in some settings appear to be accelerating – even as HIV science has never been clearer about the effectiveness of treatment and the realities of transmission risk. The 112 reported cases are not merely a statistic; they reflect the continued, routine embedding of stigma within criminal legal systems, where outdated assumptions are enforced despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

In 2026, the HIV Justice Network will prioritise consolidating reform gains while confronting jurisdictions where criminalisation remains entrenched or is intensifying. This will include targeted advocacy and capacity-building in high-volume prosecution settings; strengthened documentation and analysis of enforcement patterns to support evidence-based reform; and deeper engagement with prosecutors, judges, and policymakers to bring law and practice into line with contemporary HIV science.

Central to this work will be two UNAIDS-supported initiatives: the completion and dissemination of Good Practices in HIV Decriminalisation, providing practical, jurisdiction-tested guidance for lawmakers and advocates; and the expansion of the Expert Consensus Statement on the Science of HIV in the Context of Criminal Law to explicitly address breastfeeding, ensuring that evolving evidence is accurately reflected in legal and policy frameworks.

Together, these efforts aim to prevent new prosecutions, reduce harm, and accelerate a coordinated, science-based push to end HIV criminalisation worldwide.

Mexico: Advocates demand end to HIV criminalisation in Tabasco and Tamaulipas

Activists in two southern Mexican states are calling for the decriminalisation of HIV, warning that outdated laws continue to fuel stigma, discrimination and human rights violations against people living with the virus.

In Tabasco, José Cruz Guzmán Matías, president of the civil association Tabasqueños Unidos por la Diversidad y la Salud Sexual (TUDYSSEX), has urged the local Congress to prioritise legislative reforms in 2026. Among the key demands are the adoption of an Identity Law to legally recognise sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression, and the repeal of the offence known as “danger of contagion”. This provision criminalises people who are aware they have a serious infectious disease and are deemed to have exposed others to risk, and has long been used to prosecute people living with HIV. Activists argue that the law institutionalises serophobia by legitimising stigma, discrimination and fear, while violating fundamental rights. Guzmán Matías also called for stalled proposals banning so-called “conversion therapies” to be advanced, stressing the need for inclusion and respect for diversity.

Similar demands are being voiced in Tamaulipas, where activists have raised the alarm over a rise in HIV cases in the southern part of the state during 2025. Ana Karen López Quintana, president of Tamaulipas Diversity Vihda Trans, emphasised that the response to HIV must go beyond medical care and address social and human dimensions. Working alongside public institutions and civil society organisations, activists are pushing for the repeal of Article 203 of the state Criminal Code, which also criminalises the “danger of contagion”, as well as reforms to the Civil Code to ensure that people living with HIV can fully exercise their right to form a family.

Across both states, advocates stress that HIV is a preventable and treatable condition, and that criminalisation undermines public health by reinforcing fear and discouraging testing and care. They are calling for a shift toward a more humane model of health and justice—one grounded in human rights, accurate information and the elimination of stigma.

DRC: New study offers in-depth analysis of the legal framework governing HIV criminalisation in the DRC

Criminalization of HIV transmission in the Democratic Republic of Congo: lack of evidence, repressive abuses and human rights issues – Critical analysis and prospects for reform in light of the S.M. case

A new research paper from Jean Bedel Kaniki Tata, a judge in the Democratic Republic of Congo, offers a critical and in-depth analysis of the legal framework governing the criminalisation of HIV transmission in the DRC, using the well known S. M. case as a starting point for broader reflection.

This emblematic case highlights the excesses of a justice system that is still too often influenced by fear, prejudice, and stigmatization of people living with HIV, to the detriment of the required standards of scientific evidence. Through a rigorous examination of this decision, the article reveals the systemic flaws and repressive excesses that still characterize the Congolese justice system, where HIV-positive status is often wrongly equated with automatic proof of guilt, particularly when invoked in proceedings related to sexual violence.

Far from limiting itself to denunciation, this study takes a resolutely constructive perspective by calling for a thorough reform of the legal treatment of cases of alleged HIV transmission. It highlights the urgent need to develop clear guidelines for use by magistrates, to strengthen the training of justice professionals on the biomedical realities of HIV, and to promote a coherent approach that reconciles the fight against sexual violence, respect for human rights, and public health requirements.

This article was originally published French. A machine translated version in English is available here

USA: New Williams Institute report analyses three decades of HIV criminalisation prosecutions in Michigan

Enforcement of HIV Criminalization in Michigan

Using data obtained from the Criminal History Record database maintained by the Michigan State Police Criminal Justice Information Center, this study examines the enforcement of HIV nondisclosure laws from 1991 to 2024.

Executive Summary

Michigan’s HIV criminal laws date back to the 1980s, and it is the state with the first known conviction under an HIV criminalization law. The Williams Institute analyzed data from 1991 to 2024 from the state of Michigan regarding individuals with criminal cases alleging HIV nondisclosure under Michigan Compiled Laws § 333.5210 in the state’s penal code. Records were obtained from the state’s Criminal History Record database maintained by the Michigan State Police Criminal Justice Information Center. These records contained information on 90 cases that resulted in misdemeanor or felony convictions or were pending outcomes for a felony charge at the time of the data request and contained at least one HIV-related nondisclosure charge.

General Findings

Between 1991 and 2024, there were at least 90 cases involving 79 people and 116 HIV-related criminal charges involving HIV nondisclosure in Michigan.
- In all, 74 cases resulted in conviction on an HIV-related offense. These cases involved 68 people and 109 separate HIV-related charges.
- Nine people are awaiting a decision for a current HIV-related felony charge.
While enforcement of the HIV nondisclosure law occurred across Michigan, prosecutions were primarily concentrated in four counties.
- Cases were concentrated in four counties in the Southeast Lower Peninsula region around the Metro Detroit area. Wayne County—home to Detroit—accounted for 16% of all HIV-related criminal cases, followed by Macomb County (7%), Washtenaw County (7%), and Oakland County (4%). Together they comprised one-third (34%) of all HIV-related cases in the state, but two-thirds (67%) of people living with HIV (PLWH) in the state.
  - While Wayne County was home to 42% of the state’s PLWH, it recorded only 16% of the state’s HIV nondisclosure cases.
Men were overwhelmingly represented among individuals in the HIV-related cases analyzed, accounting for 85% of people with HIV-related cases in Michigan. Men were about 77% of PLWH in Michigan.
When looking across race categories, Black (46%) and white (53%) Michiganders made up roughly equal shares of people criminalized.
- However, Black people in Michigan accounted for 14% of the state’s population and 53% of PLWH in the state. White Michiganders, by contrast, made up 78% of the population and 34% of PLWH in the state.
- As a result, Black people in Michigan are overrepresented when compared to their share of the state’s overall population, while white people in Michigan are overrepresented compared to their share of the state’s population of PLWH.
  - Black men made up only 7% of Michigan’s population, yet 40% of PLWH, and they account for 43% of individuals convicted or with pending HIV-related cases.
  - White men comprised 41% and white women 13% of those convicted or with pending cases, despite representing only 29% and 4% of PLWH, respectively.
  - Although Black women make up 8% of Michigan’s population and 13% of PLWH, they account for only 1% of convictions or pending cases.

2019 Legislative Reform

In 2019, Michigan reformed its HIV-related nondisclosure law. Before the reform, nondisclosure of HIV status before any form of “sexual penetration,” including oral sex, was criminalized. The reform narrowed the scope of criminalized behaviors to anal and vaginal intercourse. It required either 1) intent to transmit HIV to an intimate partner, 2) actual HIV transmission, or 3) reckless disregard for transmission risk to sustain a conviction.
- Prosecutions continued post-reform: since enactment of the 2019 legal change, there have been at least 11 HIV-related nondisclosure cases involving 30 individual HIV-related nondisclosure charges.
  - However, there appears to be a recent decline in enforcement. There were nine HIV-related cases between 2020 and 2024 (the five years after the law was reformed) compared to 23 HIV-related cases between 2014 and 2018 (the five years before the law was reformed).
- Ten charges under the reformed law have resulted in a conviction. All but two were for reckless disregard (a misdemeanor offense); one was for felony intent to transmit, and one appeared to be under the pre-reform statute, although the final court disposition came after the law went into effect.
  - There have been no convictions of actual transmission of HIV (a felony) under the new law.
- Another 10 charges are awaiting a final disposition under the new law: nine for alleged intent to transmit and one for alleged misdemeanor reckless disregard.

Other Findings

Between 1991 and 2024, the Michigan State Police Criminal Justice Information Center, which maintains the state’s Criminal History Record database, did not identify any records in response to our data request documenting convictions under Michigan’s law that criminalizes PLWH for donating blood.
Further, between 1991 and 2024, the data provided by the Michigan State Police Criminal Justice Information Center included no mandatory testing charges that resulted in a conviction for that charge, and no convictions stemming from a mandatory testing charge have occurred since 2008.

Download the full report

Canada: Advocates urge Liberals to honour the Trudeau government’s commitment to reform HIV disclosure laws

Words aren’t enough: Canada must deliver on HIV criminal reform

HIV criminalization is not a new concern. For decades, people living with HIV in Canada have faced the reality that they can still face public outing by authorities, prosecution by the “justice” system, and imprisonment for allegedly not disclosing their HIV status to a sexual partner. This continues to be the case today, even in situations where there was no realistic possibility of transmission, no intent to transmit, and no transmission actually happened.

And for decades, people living with HIV, activists and community advocates, legal minds, and public health and medical experts have shown again and again that Canada’s terribly punitive approach is discriminatory, scientifically outdated, and harmful to public health. It reinforces and codifies systemic injustices and inequalities based on race, migration status, sexual orientation, and gender. It contradicts current science on HIV transmission, and it entrenches HIV stigma, further cementing barriers that people living with HIV face to accessing care and treatment, not to mention housing, employment, and personal safety. How can we expect people to feel safe getting tested and learning their HIV status when it could later be vindictively used against them?

That’s why it really mattered when, on December 1^st, 2017, the Government of Canada acknowledged these very concerns and highlighted the problematic state of HIV criminalization on World AIDS Day in their report Criminal Justice System’s Response to Non-Disclosure of HIV. The problem is that since 2017, the government’s actions have not caught up to words and there has been little progress from Canada to right these wrongs. People living with HIV in this country continue to be forced to live in fear.

Over the last eight years, activists, led by people living with HIV themselves, have continued to move the needle on HIV criminalization. Thanks to their efforts, the federal government announced national consultations on HIV criminalization at the 2022 International AIDS Conference, which was held in Montreal. “Our government recognizes that the criminalization of people living with HIV can lead to stigmatization and significant hardships,” stated then-Minister of Justice David Lametti. “This is why we are consulting Canadians on the best approach to reform the criminal law regarding HIV non-disclosure. It will help us find solutions, and will lead to better outcomes for affected populations.”

Those consultations concluded in early 2023 and since that time, no law reform has been introduced. Productive meetings with advocates aimed at making meaningful change continued for a time, until the Government of Canada quietly informed us last year that it had put any plans for real justice on the backburner.

While other jurisdictions, including various American states, such as Nevada, Virginia, Maryland, and Illinois, narrow or eliminate misguided prosecutions, the threat of criminalization continues to hang over the heads of people living with HIV here in Canada. In parallel, at a time when fewer people are being diagnosed with HIV around the world, HIV cases rose a staggering 35.2% in Canada between 2022 and 2023. While preliminary data from 2024 indicate a slight decrease in new cases in Canada, only time will tell whether this represents a reversal from recent worrying trends. What remains clear is that Canada must do more – both in its legal and policy responses – to get back on track toward the goal of eliminating HIV as a public health threat by 2030.

And so, every World AIDS Day, advocates find themselves writing yet another op-ed urging Canada to act. The headlines over the past few years alone tell the story: “Unjust HIV Criminalization is a National Disgrace”; “The Government of Canada Must Act to End the Harms of HIV Criminalization”; “We Need to Stop Criminalizing People with HIV”; “Let’s Stop Criminalizing HIV Status.” How long until these headlines are finally replaced with news that Canada has followed through on its promises to end the harms of HIV criminalization?

With a new government in place, we are feeling more hopeful than we were last World AIDS Day. But this government still needs to take firm and decisive action to bring Canada’s laws in line with science and human rights, and remove the stigma and discrimination against people living with HIV that is currently entrenched in our justice system. In so doing, we could envision a very different headline for next year’s World AIDS Day op-ed, and a very different reality for people living with HIV in Canada.

Muluba Habanyama is the Chair of the Canadian Coalition to Reform HIV Criminalization

Colin Hastings is an Assistant Professor at the University of Waterloo

André Capretti is a Policy Analyst at the HIV Legal Network

Uganda: Uganda faces a choice between scientific progress and harmful criminalisation

Uganda’s HIV future needs laws advancing progress, not repeating past

OPINION

By Belinda Agnes Namutebi

Imagine a truck arriving at your warehouse with goods you know you desperately need. They align with the future you have projected. They represent freedom, protection, and progress. They carry value that will transform your operations for years to come. But as you stand there receiving these goods, grateful for their arrival, you remain wary of a roadblock just outside your gate. A hindrance with the power to undo everything you have procured. An obstacle that does not care how far the goods have travelled or how important they are for your future.

That roadblock is Uganda’s outdated HIV & AIDS Prevention and Control Act.

Despite the funding disruptions that have threatened Uganda’s health system this year, we have been listed among the countries to receive support from the Global Fund and the United States government for the rollout of long-acting Lenacapavir, the twice-yearly injection that offers six months of protection against HIV.

Science has delivered an HIV prevention tool that complements the options Uganda already has, such as the ABC approach, oral PrEP, the dapivirine ring, and long-acting Cabotegravir. Lenacapavir offers six months of protection, which means that people at risk of HIV no longer need to take a daily pill. This convenience reduces the pill burden, which may in turn improve adherence, strengthen continuity of prevention, and ultimately lower new HIV infections, contributing to a better quality of life.

Lenacapavir is also discreet and offers genuine choice. Young women and girls who are exposed to HIV can now select a method that fits their realities. That freedom of choice is empowering, and it naturally reduces stigma because prevention becomes a private, dignified, and self-directed decision.

The economic benefit of Lenacapavir for Uganda’s health budget is significant. Every infection prevented is a treatment avoided. The more people who remain HIV-free because of long-acting prevention, the fewer resources the country will spend on lifelong HIV treatment.

Now this science arrives in Uganda and meets a law that criminalises having HIV. A law like this creates fear, which means people avoid testing because they do not want to be labelled criminals. When the law makes testing feel dangerous, people stay away from the very services that are meant to help them. If they do not test, they will not know their status. And if they do not know their status, they cannot make informed decisions about whether to start HIV treatment or whether to use HIV prevention tools, especially if they are at risk.

Science has already provided these tools: treatment that suppresses the virus, and prevention options that protect people before exposure. But without testing, none of this reaches the people who need it. Lack of testing also reduces disclosure, breaks trust, and eventually affects adherence because people operate in secrecy instead of safety.

The result is that the law ends up keeping people away from the systems that could protect them. Instead of slowing HIV transmission, it drives it underground. Instead of supporting prevention, it actively undermines it. The law creates the very silence that science is trying to break.

Uganda now stands at a moment when science is offering us a new beginning. Long-acting prevention is here. Global partners are ready. Communities are ready. Young women are ready. The only part of the system still living in 2014 is the law. If we want the goods at our warehouse to reach the people they are intended for, we must clear the road ahead.

As Uganda moves toward the polls to choose a new Parliament, this cannot be a forgotten issue. The HIV legislation must be at the top of the legislative agenda. Our next Parliament must decide whether Uganda will move forward with science or remain anchored to a past that no longer protects us.

From Courtrooms to Communities:
Funding Advocacy to Sustain HIV Responses

Our Executive Director’s remarks on today’s webinar aimed at philanthropic funders, convened by Funders Concerned About AIDS.

Today, I’ll be connecting two major forces shaping the global HIV response: the wave of criminalisation targeting people living with HIV, people most vulnerable to HIV, and their advocacy organisations, as well as the expanding reach and impact of the Global Gag Order.

Both of these reflect the same problem – the use of law and policy to control bodies, silence communities, and restrict access to health and rights. By the end of this webinar, I hope it will be crystal clear why funding advocacy remains the single highest-impact investment funders can make.

The HIV Justice Network, which I lead, works to end the unjust use of criminal law against people living with HIV worldwide. We document laws and cases, support and train advocates, and co-ordinate the HIV JUSTICE WORLDWIDE coalition – connecting the global to local and back again, linking community organisations, lawyers, and human rights defenders across all regions of the world to reform laws and prosecutorial practices.

HIV criminalisation remains stubbornly and worryingly widespread. More than 130 countries have used criminal law against people living with HIV accused of non-disclosure, potential or perceived HIV exposure or unintentional HIV transmission. Currently, 83 countries have HIV-specific criminal laws. Others use general criminal laws like “bodily harm”, “endangering health,” and even “attempted murder.”

These laws, and their application, are often based on outdated science and moral panic. They make people living with HIV to be singularly responsible for HIV prevention. They punish us for transmission risks that no longer exist in the era of treatment as prevention – and consider the harm of HIV to be so exceptional they have special laws, or prosecutions, that specifically target people diagnosed HIV-positive. No other communicable disease is treated so problematically in law.

But HIV criminalisation doesn’t exist in isolation. It is part of a broader ecosystem of criminalisation that targets the very communities most affected by HIV – sex workers, migrants, people who use drugs, and LGBTQ+ people. When these populations are criminalised, they are pushed underground, excluded from health services, and made more vulnerable to violence and exploitation.

HIV criminalisation also has a gendered impact. Women are often the first to be diagnosed, especially during pregnancy, and therefore the first to face prosecution. In some countries, pregnant women living with HIV have been charged with endangering their unborn child or accused of transmission through breastfeeding.

Gender-based violence, unequal access to legal representation, and social stigma amplify these injustices. At the same time, the criminalisation of sex work and gender nonconformity exposes women – particularly trans women – to harassment and violence from authorities.

And increasingly, advocacy organisations themselves are being restricted by laws that limit freedom of association, deny foreign funding, or create a chilling effect through so-called “anti-propaganda” or “foreign agent” measures. In more and more countries, simply speaking out against criminalisation is considered to be subversive.

And then there is the Global Gag Order, reinstated and expanded in early 2025 under the Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance policy. This policy prohibits non-U.S. NGOs receiving U.S. global health funds from providing, referring for, or even discussing abortion as a method of family planning – even when using their own, non-U.S. resources. It now applies to all U.S. global health assistance, including HIV funding.

For communities and organisations already constrained by criminal laws, the gag order adds another layer of silencing.
• It disrupts integrated HIV and reproductive-health services.
• It forces organisations to choose between funding and integrity.
• It weakens partnerships built over decades of global health cooperation.
• And it amplifies the chilling effect – discouraging advocacy, speech, and even data collection on reproductive rights.

Once again, women and girls bear the brunt. When abortion access is restricted, maternal deaths rise, and the same clinics providing HIV care lose their ability to deliver comprehensive, rights-based health services.

So when we talk about decriminalisation, we’re not just talking about repealing one set of laws. We’re talking about defending the space for civil society, for public health, and for human rights to function at all.

Despite these challenges, advocacy works. Here’s some examples – with a focus on HIV decriminalisation.
• In the US, in the past year alone, Maryland and North Dakota have repealed their HIV-specific criminal laws, while Tennessee removed mandatory sex offender registration for HIV-related convictions.
• In Mexico, again thanks to community leadership, five states have repealed vague “danger of contagion” laws used for HIV criminalisation, with more to come.
• In EECA, civil society in Ukraine is working right now with parliamentary champions to remove an HIV criminalisation law from its criminal code, despite being in the middle of a war.
• In Africa, sustained community advocacy led to the repeal of Zimbabwe’s HIV-specific criminal law and the prevention of a new HIV criminalisation law in Malawi.

But these victories didn’t happen overnight. They resulted from years of partnership between communities, legal and scientific experts, and funders willing to invest in advocacy infrastructure.

Community-led organisations are the foundation of all this progress. We are the early-warning systems when new laws are proposed, and we are the first responders when individuals face charges. We mobilise people living with HIV, key population and women’s networks, and human rights defenders to speak directly with policymakers, prosecutors, and the media.

Philanthropy has a crucial role here. Advocacy funding remains a small fraction of global HIV philanthropy, yet it has exponential impact. Advocacy capacity cannot be switched on only when a law or case hits the headlines. It requires continuity, institutional memory, and relationships built over time.

Funding advocacy protects every other investment in prevention, treatment, and care. Without enabling environments – without legal and policy reform – those investments cannot succeed.

Funders can make the difference by:
• Providing core, flexible, multi-year support that allows community-led groups to stay engaged between crises.
• Investing in coalitions and regional and global networks, like HIV JUSTICE WORLDWIDE, linking legal, scientific and human rights expertise with communities.
• Supporting data, storytelling, and knowledge translation – turning lived experience and evidence into policy change.
• Protecting civil-society space, especially where advocacy itself is criminalised or restricted.

To close, I want to leave one thought: HIV justice is prevention.

Every law that criminalises people living with HIV, every law that targets LGBTQ+ people, sex workers, people who use drugs, or migrants – and every funding policy that silences reproductive rights – makes the global epidemic harder to end.

Ending AIDS requires more than medicines. It requires dismantling the legal and policy barriers that drive people away from care and from each other.

Ending HIV criminalisation is achievable. We have the science, the evidence, and the community power to do it. What we don’t always have is flexible, sustained, core funding. Advocacy is not optional; it is infrastructure – the connective tissue that holds the HIV response together.

Philanthropy has both the freedom and the responsibility to keep that justice space open – ensuring that evidence, human rights, and community leadership remain at the heart of the global HIV response.

That is how we move from courtrooms to communities – and closer to ending AIDS as a public-health and human-rights crisis.

Humanising the Law: Reflections on Two Decades of Advocacy Against HIV Criminalisation

This week, the international peer-reviewed journal, AIDS Care, published online a research paper that examines how two decades of scientific progress, community advocacy, and storytelling have come together to influence laws, policies, and public understanding of HIV in the context of the criminal law.

In Humanising the law: harnessing science and community voices to end HIV criminalisation, I trace nearly twenty years of work to challenge HIV criminalisation, drawing on my own involvement and on the collective efforts of so many others in the HIV justice movement.

Some of the key points include:

Science as evidence for change. The consensus that people on effective treatment cannot transmit HIV, and the 2018 Expert Consensus Statement, have reshaped legal reasoning and prevented unjust prosecutions.
Stories bring the impact to life. The ordeals of people such as Ugandan nurse Rosemary Namubiru and the real Malawian woman at the centre of our short film, Mwayi’s Story, highlight the human cost of HIV criminalisation and the resilience of those most affected.
Legal reforms are possible. Since the HIV JUSTICE WORLDWIDE coalition was created in 2016, over a dozen countries and jurisdictions around the world have repealed or modernised their HIV criminalisation laws.

But I also make it clear that much remains to be done. HIV criminalisation continues to undermine public health and human rights, particularly in environments shaped by authoritarianism, disinformation, and broader crackdowns on sexuality, gender, migration, sex work, and drug use.

That is why I argue for a paradigm shift – a humanisation of the law that centres lived experiences, affirms dignity, and ensures legal systems reflect science and rights rather than fear and prejudice. Achieving this requires:

Ongoing investment in legal reform, advocacy, and community-led monitoring.
Stronger cross-movement solidarity with those facing overlapping forms of criminalisation.
Sustained funding to support the global HIV justice movement for the long term.

As I conclude in the article: ending HIV criminalisation is not only about changing laws, but also about changing cultures. It is about recognising that our lives, our rights, and our voices matter.

A limited number of free eprints of this article are available from this link.

Canada: Google refuses to suppress name-based search results in dismissed HIV criminalisation case

Google wants to keep HIV status of underage Canadian in search results

Canada’s data protection authority wants to enforce a version of the “right to be forgotten” that is reduced to a specific risk. Google is not playing along.

Google refuses to accept the Canadian version of the“right to be forgotten“, even though it is significantly reduced and better protected against abuse than the European version. Google’s refusal poses a problem for the monarchy’s weak data protection authority. The starting point of the dispute is media reports found via Google’s search engine about the arrest and prosecution of an HIV-positive, underage person, probably over a decade ago.

The person was once accused of not disclosing their HIV status prior to sexual contact. Canadian media reported on this, citing the person’s full name and sexual orientation. The data protection authority does not consider the reports to be a violation of the law.

However, the charges against the minor were quickly dropped because the results of the investigation showed that the person had never posed a risk to the health of others. Canada’s federal prosecutor generally does not prosecute cases where there was no realistic risk of infection. But if you enter the person’s name into Google’s search engine, you will still find the media reports about the arrest and charges for the alleged sexual offense at the top.

The consequences for the person are dire: physical attacks, difficulties finding work, social ostracism. She would like hyperlinks to outdated media reports to no longer appear in Google’s search results when her name is entered. When Google refused, the complainant turned to the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada in 2017.

Years of dispute over jurisdiction

The Office opened proceedings, but Google claimed that the authority was not allowed to investigate the search engine. It was used for journalistic purposes, for which the Canadian federal data protection law PEPIDA provides an exception. The authority went to court and won a declaration at both first (2021) and second instance (2023) that “every part” of the search engine is covered by the Canadian federal privacy law PEPIDA, especially as the search does not exclusively serve journalistic purposes.

Nevertheless, Google still refuses to suppress the hyperlinks to the media reports when a person’s name is entered. The authority is by no means demanding that the media reports be deleted from the index altogether. They may continue to be linked when other search terms are entered, but this should no longer happen when the name of the person concerned is entered. To this end, the data protection authority refers to a central rubber paragraph of the law (PEPIDA paragraph 5 section 3): “An organization may collect, use or disclose personal information only for purposes that a reasonable person would consider are appropriate in the circumstances.” (E.g.: Organizations may collect, use and disclose personal information only for purposes that a reasonable person would consider appropriate in the circumstances).

Personal protection vs public interest

Under certain limited conditions, it follows that search results may be unlawful: If the search results are likely to cause significant harm to an individual, and this outweighs the public interest in the search results when the individual’s name is entered.

In this particular case, this public interest, if any, was low because the person in question was not a person of public interest and the media reports revolved around highly sensitive information about private life, not public activities or working life. Furthermore, the charges were quickly suspended; according to current guidelines, they would hardly ever have been brought.

Although there is public discourse about criminal sanctions for undisclosed HIV status, the public can find the specific media reports via thematic search terms; the ability to find them via a person’s name does not contribute significantly to the discourse.

Most of the linked articles would report incompletely and misleadingly, as they do not mention the subsequent resting of the charges. They also fail to mention the federal and provincial guidelines for not pressing charges without risk of infection. Without this context, readers could gain a false impression, which could seriously harm the person named. In general, the articles were published many years ago, which also reduces the public interest in linking to them.

Infringement remains without consequences

By continuing to disseminate the links after entering the person’s name, Google permanently violated the cited legal provision. However, the Canadian Federal Data Protection Agency can neither impose fines nor impose conditions; it is limited to recommendations. Google does not want to implement these.

“Individuals have the right under Canadian privacy law to have information about themselves removed from online search results after entering their name in certain circumstances where there is a significant risk of harm that outweighs the public interest in that information being made available through such a search,” says Canada’s Privacy Commissioner Philippe Dufresne. His authority will “consider all available options to ensure Google’s compliance with the law.” What this will look like remains to be seen.

Comparison with Europe

The Canadian data protection authority’s access to a “right to be forgotten” has the advantage over the European model of less potential for abuse. Legal web content is not to be deleted from the search index as a matter of principle; rather, the focus is on protecting those affected. Anyone searching specifically for such content should not be able to easily find content that is dangerous for those affected, while other search terms will continue to lead to the target. The fact that a person’s name is also listed there has little effect on people who are largely unknown.

In the European model, the webpage as a whole is regularly filtered out of the search results, regardless of the search term. This leads to abuse if user comments are published on the same webpage. Anyone who doesn’t like a media report, for example, writes a “drunk” post underneath it. The poster is soon “embarrassed”, which is why he requests the search engines to suppress the webpage. The search engines have to obey. The operators of the affected website never find out about the delisting, which the European “affected party” has enforced without a court ruling.

Our 2024 Annual Report:
A Year of Progress, Challenge and Purpose

Today with the publication of our 2024 Annual Report we look back at our achievements last year.

The report is published by the HIV Justice Foundation, an independent non-profit legal entity registered in the Netherlands as Stichting HIV Justice, which serves as the fiscal organisation for the HIV Justice Network (HJN) and other related activities.

In a world increasingly shaped by political upheaval and public health fatigue, HIV criminalisation remains a glaring human rights crisis. In 2024, the HIV Justice Network and our HIV JUSTICE WORLDWIDE partners navigated both hard-fought wins and sobering setbacks. Yet, despite these setbacks, the global movement against HIV criminalisation remains strong and united.

From law reform to expanded training, and from renewed coalitions to powerful storytelling, our advocacy continues to make an impact. Welcome reforms in several countries signal growing momentum for change. But stigma and anti-rights agendas are also driving continued misuse of the criminal law. We recorded 65 new HIV criminalisation cases this year, up from 57 in 2023 – in 20 countries. These cases, and the persistence of HIV-specific criminal laws in 79 countries, underscore the need for accelerated advocacy and resources.

In 2024, we expanded the reach of the HIV Justice Academy and deepened community engagement globally, while continuing to centre the voices of those most affected by HIV criminalisation. A mid-term review of our 2022–2026 Strategic Plan led us to sharpen our focus on intersectionality and sustainability and helped identify emerging areas of concern, including HIV-related migration and travel restrictions. This laid the foundation for the launch of Positive Destinations, the new home for what was previously hivtravel.org – the key source of information globally about this issue. It reflects our commitment to freedom of movement and dignity for people living with HIV.

None of this would have been possible without our dedicated team, our partners, and our funders. We’re especially grateful to the Robert Carr Fund, Gilead Sciences and the Levi Strauss Foundation for sustaining our work in a year marked by financial uncertainty.

As we face 2025 and beyond, the path remains steep, but not insurmountable. Every unjust law challenged, every advocate supported, every narrative shifted brings us closer to our vision: a world where no one is criminalised or discriminated against because of their HIV status.

Links

Our 2024 Annual Report

Support HJN’s work with a donation