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

US: Missouri prison system ends solitary confinement policy targeting people with HIV

A Woman With HIV Spent Six Years in Solitary. She Sued and Missouri Will Change Its Policy.

Honesty Bishop was attacked by her cellmate. Prison officials deemed her sexually active and kept her in isolation for more than 2,000 days.

Honesty Bishop could hear the screams of other people in solitary confinement. Sometimes it was so cold in her cell, she could see her breath. She dealt with scabies and mold. Her days and nights were spent in extreme isolation.

The Missouri Department of Corrections kept her locked in a cell about the size of a parking space for over six years.

She wrote letters to her sister, Latasha Monroe, in St. Louis. They both wondered why Bishop continued to be held in such severe conditions at Jefferson City Correctional Center, a men’s facility.

Interviews and records on Bishop’s years in solitary confinement paint a dark picture of a person who felt alone and hopeless, and, in the depths of despair, was driven to self-harm.

Bishop, a transgender woman, initially landed there after her cellmate tried to sexually assault her in spring 2015.

She was HIV-positive and because of the assault was classified as “sexually active” — even though she was the victim and had been on medication, making the virus undetectable and therefore untransmissible, according to a federal lawsuit filed against the Missouri Department of Corrections.

Among the reasons people can be kept in isolation, according to the department’s policy, are murder, rape and being sexually active with HIV. In her suit, Bishop said corrections officials kept her in solitary confinement because of her HIV status.

Whenever she appeared before a committee that reviewed her placement in solitary, which generally took place every 30 or 90 days, corrections officials noted 15 times when Bishop had no violations since the previous review.

“I’ve been good,” she told them during a hearing on her solitary confinement in January 2016, and again that September.

Though she filed grievances about how long she had been kept in solitary, her pleas were ignored. Department of Corrections officials wouldn’t release her from the unit until 2021 — after more than 2,000 days.

Missouri is one of three states that singles out people with HIV when it comes to solitary confinement, according to a review of 49 states’ policies on administrative segregation and restrictive housing.

The department’s HIV policy will now be changed under the terms of an Aug. 20 settlement that resulted from the lawsuit.

The state agreed to remove language singling out people with HIV for segregation. The terms also include conducting an assessment of anyone with HIV who is sent to solitary and mandatory training for some prison staff.

The department would not comment specifically on the policy or the lawsuit. Karen Pojmann, a spokeswoman for the agency, said a committee is in the process of overhauling restrictive housing. Two prisons are piloting a new model that includes “meaningful hearings” and programming to help people reenter the general population in prison, she said.

Bishop did not live to see the policy change — she died by suicide on Aug. 13, 2024. She was 34.

Global study reveals 50 countries still enforce HIV-related travel restrictions

A new global study presented this week at the 13th IAS Conference on HIV Science in Kigali (IAS 2025) has revealed that 50 countries around the world continue to enforce HIV-related travel and residence restrictions, in clear violation of international human rights principles.

The data, shared by the HIV Justice Network through its new platform Positive Destinations, highlights the persistence of discriminatory laws and policies that prevent people living with HIV from freely travelling, working, studying, or settling in many parts of the world.

Despite progress – 83 countries now have no HIV-specific travel restrictions, and many others have adopted more inclusive approaches – 17 countries still impose severe measures such as outright entry bans, mandatory testing, and deportation. These include Bhutan, Brunei, Egypt, Iran, Kuwait, Malaysia, Russia, and the United Arab Emirates. Migrants and students are often disproportionately affected, with some unaware of the rules until after testing or disclosure, resulting in forced returns, loss of income, and separation from families.

Another 33 countries – including Australia, Canada, Kazakhstan, the Philippines, Saudi Arabia, and Singapore – have partial restrictions. These include requirements for HIV testing in visa applications, discretionary decisions based on perceived healthcare costs, and reduced access to essential services. Although these policies may appear neutral on the surface, they continue to disadvantage people living with HIV.

“These restrictions are rooted in outdated public health thinking and perpetuate stigma,” said Edwin J Bernard, HIV Justice Network’s Executive Director. “They obstruct access to healthcare, education, and family life, especially for migrants and refugees.”

Click on the image to download the poster

In 2024, Positive Destinations documented several cases of deportation based solely on HIV status: Kuwait deported over 100 people, Russia’s Dagestan region deported nine, and Libya deported two. Such practices are increasingly being challenged by legal action. In Canada, for example, a court case led by the HIV Legal Network contests the “excessive demand” clause of immigration law, arguing it violates the country’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

However, policy reform has been uneven. Australia raised its health cost threshold for visa eligibility, slightly easing access to temporary stays, but permanent residency remains elusive for many people with HIV. A recent case saw an Italian teacher denied residency due solely to his HIV-positive status.

The study also underscores how HIV-related migration barriers often intersect with other forms of criminalisation and discrimination. In Uzbekistan and Russia, HIV criminalisation laws are paired with mandatory HIV testing for migrants. In the U.S., HIV-positive and LGBTQ+ asylum seekers continue to face mistreatment in detention centres. And in a tragic case in Turkey, a Syrian trans woman was reportedly deported after her HIV status was disclosed and later killed upon return.

The authors of the study call for urgent action: “Eliminating these harmful policies is essential to ending AIDS, achieving universal health coverage, and upholding the dignity and rights of people living with HIV everywhere,” said Bernard.

Positive Destinations, which hosts the updated Global Database on HIV-Specific Travel and Residence Restrictions, is available at www.positivedestinations.info

EP0623 Addressing HIV-related travel restrictions: Progress and challenges in eliminating discriminatory policies by Edwin J Bernard, Sylvie Beaumont, Elliot Hatt, and Sofía Várguez was presented at IAS2025 by Brent Allan at the 13th IAS Conference on HIV Science, Kigali, Rwanda.

New global data reveals rising HIV criminalisation amid stalling legal reforms

The HIV Justice Network published new data this week showing a troubling rise in the number of people criminalised for HIV non-disclosure, potential or perceived exposure, or unintentional transmission in 2024 and the first half of 2025. As legal reforms appear to be stalling, discriminatory prosecutions, harsh sentences, and misuse of outdated laws continue to impact people with HIV and the HIV response.

The figures, presented at the 13h IAS Conference on HIV Science (IAS 2025) in Kigali, Rwanda, are drawn from the Global HIV Criminalisation Database. The database documents criminal cases and legal developments involving HIV-specific or general criminal laws worldwide.

In 2024, at least 65 HIV criminalisation cases were reported across 22 countries – up from 57 in 2023 and 50 in 2022. Russia (25 cases) and the United States (11) led the global tally, followed by Uzbekistan, Spain, Argentina, Belarus, Senegal, and Singapore. For the first time, prosecutions were documented in Panama and Uruguay.

The upward trend continued into 2025, with 48 cases reported in just the first six months. Uzbekistan (28) and Russia (9) again accounted for the majority, alongside new cases in the U.S., Canada, and Argentina. However, the actual number of cases is likely much higher, particularly in Eastern Europe, Central Asia, and the United States, where civil society organisations report many cases go undocumented.

“These cases show that HIV criminalisation remains a global crisis,” said Edwin J. Bernard, Executive Director of the HIV Justice Network. “Far too often, people living with HIV are prosecuted not for causing harm, but simply for living with a health condition – often in ways that are unscientific, discriminatory, and deeply unjust.”

Download the poster by clicking on the image

The report highlights the intersection of HIV criminalisation with racism, homophobia, gender-based discrimination, and systemic inequality. In Senegal, for example, prosecutions have disproportionately targeted LGBTQ+ individuals. In the U.S., criminal laws continue to be weaponised against communities of colour, even in cases involving no risk of transmission – such as spitting, or sex with an undetectable viral load.

One of the most alarming cases occurred in South Africa, where a former soldier was sentenced to life plus ten years for rape and attempted murder after failing to disclose his HIV status to a consenting partner – despite no evidence of intent or actual transmission. Advocates warn that such cases equate HIV non-disclosure with sexual violence and undermine decades of public health and human rights gains.

Yet, amidst the setbacks, 2024/2025 also brought some signs of hope. Maryland and North Dakota fully repealed their HIV-specific laws, while Tennessee removed mandatory sex offender registration for HIV-related convictions. Mexico City and Colima repealed vague “danger of contagion” laws, and Ukraine’s parliament voted to remove HIV from its criminal code.

In Zimbabwe, community activism helped block a proposal to re-criminalise HIV transmission. However, a new law was introduced criminalising the deliberate transmission of STIs to children, including HIV – raising fears it could be used against mothers living with HIV, particularly in breastfeeding cases.

Despite these advances, HIV criminalisation remains widespread. A total of 83 countries still have HIV-specific laws, and 23 countries reported prosecutions in this period using either HIV-specific or general laws. The HIV Justice Network warns that without urgent action, the world is unlikely to meet UNAIDS’ target of reducing punitive laws to below 10% of countries by 2030.

“The path forward must be rooted in science, rights, and community leadership,” Bernard said. “We must end laws that punish people for their status, and instead build legal systems that support health, dignity, and justice.”

EPO622 Recent progress and setbacks in HIV criminalisation around the world by Edwin J Bernard, Sylvie Beaumont, and Elliot Hatt was presented at IAS 2025 by Paul Kidd at 13th IAS Conference on HIV Science in Kigali, Rwanda.