Chongqing became the latest Chinese municipality to require people living with HIV to inform their spouses and sexual partners of their status, following similar legislation in several provinces across the country.
The Chongqing AIDS Prevention and Treatment Regulations, approved yesterday by the municipal people’s congress standing committee, will take effect on December 1, 2026. Under the rules, infected individuals must proactively disclose their infection or illness to their spouse, sexual partners, and the other party in a marriage registration application within a specified timeframe.
The regulations introduce a mechanism allowing medical institutions to notify partners on the patient’s behalf if the infected person fails to do so, based on epidemiological investigation findings, while providing medical guidance to prevent transmission. The law also strictly prohibits public disclosure of infected individuals’ personal information without consent, drawing a clear line between “notification to specific individuals” and “public disclosure to unspecified persons.”
China’s national AIDS Prevention and Treatment Regulations, in force since March 2006, already oblige people with HIV to inform their sexual partners. Several provinces have since enacted similar provisions. Guangxi’s regulations, effective in 2013, require disclosure within one month of a positive diagnosis, with disease control authorities authorized to notify partners if the patient does not. Yunnan’s 2021 rules and Guangdong’s 2023 regulations contain comparable requirements, with Guangdong also mandating disclosure before marriage registration.
The Civil Code stipulates that a spouse with a major illness must inform the other party before marriage registration; failure to do so gives the other party the right to request annulment. China’s maternal and child health care law includes AIDS among designated infectious diseases screened in premarital examinations.
Courts have applied these provisions. In a case published in the Supreme People’s Court’s case database, a Sichuan court annulled a marriage in September 2024 after a husband concealed his HIV-positive status before the wedding. In Shanghai, a court annulled a marriage in 2023 after a wife learned her husband had been diagnosed with AIDS in 2011 but had hidden it for years.
US: Ohio advocates launch first Advocacy Day for HIV law reform
HIV decriminalization supporters to hold first-ever Advocacy Day at Ohio Statehouse
Ohio still has six laws on the books that criminalize living with HIV. And the laws are actively enforced.
HIV decriminalization advocates will hold an inaugural Advocacy Day on November 17 at the Ohio Statehouse to put legislative pressure on lawmakers to modernize state laws that unnecessarily target and punish people living with HIV.
Ohio has six laws that criminalize certain acts – including sex – for people living with HIV, or that substantially increase sentences for them compared to people who do not have the virus. These laws impose stiff penalties – regardless of whether the virus is or can be transmitted, and even in some cases where transmission is not scientifically possible. In some situations, the law also requires sex offender registration.
Many states have taken steps to modernize their HIV laws.
“We’re been really inspired by some of the policy wins we’re seeing in other states like North Dakota, Maryland and Louisiana, and we think the environment is perfect right now to do the same in Ohio,” said Josh Meek, steering committee member of the Ohio Health Modernization Movement (OHMM), a coalition of organizations and individuals dedicated to modernizing outdated HIV Laws in Ohio
According to a 2024 study released by OHMM and the Equality Ohio Education Fund, from 2014 to 2020, there were at least 214 confirmed HIV-related prosecutions in Ohio, of which over half (120 cases) came from the state’s “harassment with a bodily substance” law and about a third (77 cases) came under Ohio’s felonious assault law. The remainder (17 cases) were related to sex work.
Additionally, the research shows that Ohio’s HIV criminalization laws disproportionately impact Black communities, with at least 36% of defendants identifying as Black. Statewide, 29% of all defendants (62 people) were Black men.
Advocacy Day will give supporters, individuals living with HIV and experts in health policy and criminal justice the opportunity to meet in groups directly with elected officials. A catered lunch will feature a speakers panel on the need for HIV decriminalization, rounding out the day that organizers say is as much about a learning opportunity as it will be about advocacy.
“For some legislators, this might be their first time they’re ever knowingly meeting with someone living with HIV,” said Meek.
The ultimate goal of Advocacy Day is to bring about legislation that modernizes the outdated laws. Republican Rep. Sara Carruthers proposed a pair of modernization bills in 2024, but they did not make it past a first reading.
Although advocates aren’t yet ready to identify the names of specific legislators who might champion new bills, they say the appetite for reform is definitely present.
“There are both Democrats and Republicans who are interested in talking about HIV and who recognize that we have penalties on the books that are excessive,” said Meek. “They know we’re not trying to move heaven and earth but are just trying to create what is more sensible and equitable for all Ohioans.”
In addition to encouraging people to register for Advocacy Day, advocates are urging more Ohioans to get involved with OHMM – whether that’s through helping educate their community, reaching out to their elected representatives or writing an op-ed to their local newspaper.
“HIV is not a death sentence, and we’ve made great strides in science, technology and understanding what HIV really is,” said Meek. “More people need to know that before we can make some needed change.” 🔥
IGNITE ACTION
The Ohio Health Modernization Movements’s Advocacy Day will be held on Tuesday, November 17, at the Ohio Statehouse in Columbus. Register to attend here.
Prior to Advocacy Day, OHMM will hold a “Speak Up With Confidence: Media Training and How to Talk to Legislators” virtual session on October 26 at 6 p.m. (register here) and an “Advocacy Day Q&A: What to Know Before You Go” virtual session on November 9 at 6 p.m. (register here).
Türkiye: Concerns raised over isolation of people with HIV and access to treatment
People living with HIV held in isolation after LGBTI+ arrests, group says
Pozitif Alan criticized the practice, noting that HIV is not transmitted through everyday contact.
People living with HIV who were jailed following operations targeting LGBTI+s and rights advocates have been placed in isolation because of their HIV status, according to the HIV-focused group Pozitif Alan.
The group said some of those arrested in the Sep 13 “My Family Is Safe” operations were being held in isolation without a medical basis.
“HIV status can never be grounds for isolation,” Pozitif Alan said, noting that the virus is not transmitted through everyday contact, including sharing the same space or skin contact.
“This practice is contrary to scientific facts, discriminatory, and degrading to human dignity,” it added.
Pozitif Alan also raised concerns about possible disruptions to medication and treatment for people living with HIV in prison.
“Continuity of HIV treatment is vital,” the statement said. “Any delay or interruption in access to medication would seriously endanger the health of those imprisoned.”
The group called on prison administrations and the Health Ministry to guarantee uninterrupted access to medication and necessary healthcare services for imprisoned people living with HIV.
Pozitif Alan further said some of the jailed rights advocates had worked to improve access to HIV testing, treatment and prevention services. It warned that treating such work as criminal activity could undermine HIV prevention efforts and public health. (NÖ/VK)
Fiji: Response to the national HIV emergency must be centred on human rights and human dignity
HIV emergency measures must not fuel discrimination, forced testing
Emergency measures being considered in response to Fiji’s HIV outbreak must not be used to justify compulsory HIV testing, unlawful disclosure of HIV status, arbitrary detention or discrimination.
This has been highlighted by the Fiji Human Rights and Anti-Discrimination Commission after Minister for Health Dr Ratu Atonio Lalabalavu declared HIV a national crisis, with Government introducing a formal needle and syringe programme alongside expanded testing, treatment and prevention measures as 1 in 60 adults in Fiji are living with HIV.
Dr Lalabalavu has assured that there will be no mandatory testing as it is not in the HIV Act.
Human Rights Commissioner Chantelle Khan says any extraordinary powers used by Government must have a clear legal basis, defined purpose, scope and duration.
Khan says the measures must be lawful, necessary, proportionate, time-bound, non-discriminatory and subject to appropriate oversight.
The Commissioner adds that Fiji’s response to the national HIV emergency must be centred on human rights and human dignity.
She says HIV is not only a public health issue, but also a human rights concern affecting the rights to life, health, dignity, privacy, equality and freedom from discrimination.
She says fear, blame and punishment could drive people away from testing and treatment, while trust, accurate information and accessible healthcare can save lives.
She says the Commission is calling for the expansion of voluntary and confidential HIV testing, uninterrupted access to antiretroviral treatment and strengthened prevention, counselling, harm-reduction, and maternal and child health services.
She says people living with HIV and affected communities must be meaningfully involved in developing and monitoring the national response.
Khan says no person should be denied healthcare, employment, education, housing or any other service because of their actual or perceived HIV status.
Türkiye: LGBTQ+ and HIV support groups targeted in nationwide police raids
Turkish authorities launch crackdown on LGBTQ+ and HIV support groups
ISTANBUL (AP) — Turkish authorities cracked down on multiple LGBTQ+ groups and individuals early Sunday morning, detaining dozens of members, breaking into association offices and raiding popular hangouts.
In an escalation of its decade-long hostility toward LGBTQ+ groups, particularly in the lead-up to elections, simultaneous police raids beginning at 1 a.m. took place in the major cities of Istanbul, Ankara, Izmir, Aydin and Mersin.
Justice Minister Akin Gurlek announced on social media that the investigation into 162 suspects, nine associations and 13 businesses was to “protect children, the institution of the family, and public order” in line with President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s 10-year executive order relating to families and children.
“As per the duty to protect families and children given to the state by the constitution, no criminal organization, abuse network or illegal activity which targets children, youths or families will be tolerated!” Gurlek said.
The raids targeted both current and former members of multiple prominent LGBTQ+ rights and HIV awareness groups. The organizations’ websites were also blocked.
Gurlek also noted that such associations were found to receive significant funding from international sources and agencies.
The Human Rights Association condemned the raids. “This is not a judicial investigation; it is a political operation aimed at forcing society into a monolithic family model and purging LGBTI+ and independent civil society under the guise of protecting the family and children,” it said.
“To include unrelated charges such as ‘forming a criminal organization,’ ‘drugs,’ ‘prostitution’ and ‘obscenity’ serves not to reveal the truth but to incriminate the entire community.”
The religious conservative Justice and Development Party has been increasingly vocal against LGBTQ+ groups to play up to the more conservative elements of its base. In 2015, it banned Istanbul Pride, which had tens of thousands of attendees in previous years prior. Since then, authorities have violently dispersed any attempted gatherings for Pride.
This summer, an LGBTQ+ cruise ship that tours the Mediterranean and has docked in Turkey multiple times in the past was refused permission to dock there.
The Ottoman Empire, predecessor to the modern republic of Turkey, decriminalized homosexuality in 1858, however there is still significant social discrimination.
Senegal: Six months into Senegal’s LGBTQ+ crackdown, concerns grow over its HIV impact
Nearly six months after the tightening of the law on homosexuality, the era of repression in Senegal
Behind the debates on sovereignty, religion and fundamental rights, another question remains: what human and public health cost will Senegal have to pay for this tightening of the law?
Nearly six months after the vote on 11 March 2026 on the reform significantly toughening penalties for same-sex relations, Senegal is assessing the initial consequences of this legislative turning point. Arrests, legal proceedings, concerns amongst human rights defenders and pressure on those working to combat HIV: beyond its political symbolism, the new version of Article 319 of the Criminal Code is now having very tangible effects.
It should first be recalled that the vote was decisive. On 11 March 2026, the Senegalese National Assembly adopted, by an overwhelming majority, the bill amending Article 319 of the Criminal Code: 135 votes in favour, none against and only three abstentions. The reform was subsequently promulgated by President Bassirou Diomaye Faye on 27 March and published in the Official Gazette three days later.
However, Senegal was by no means starting from a position of decriminalisation – far from it. Since 1966, and under the clear influence of France, same-sex sexual relations had already been punishable as ‘acts against nature’, with sentences ranging from one to five years’ imprisonment. It is worth recalling at this point that the French Republic, through its Director of the Judicial Police, seriously considered that “homosexuality (was) intrinsically linked to criminality. ’ With the 1982 Act, French society has evolved considerably, and many countries around the world have changed their perspective on the matter, particularly since the World Health Organisation removed homosexuality from its list of mental disorders in 1990.
The reform of last March has significantly strengthened Senegal’s legal framework. From now on, the offences in question are punishable by five to ten years’ imprisonment. The legislature has also broadened the scope of the legislation by criminalising ‘advocacy’ as well as the funding or support intended to ‘promote or glorify’ homosexuality, bisexuality or transsexuality in particular. The law also provides for penalties against public denunciations made in bad faith.
A few months later, the main development relates less to the text itself than to the climate in which it is being applied. Arrests had begun even before it came into force. In February, several men were arrested in connection with ‘unnatural acts’, against a backdrop of intense media coverage and political mobilisation in favour of tougher legislation. Reuters reported that 27 men had been arrested between 9 and 24 February.
Following the law’s enactment, this trend continued. According to Le Monde, more than a hundred people believed to belong to the LGBT community had been arrested since the beginning of February. The newspaper also reported that the first conviction under the new legislation had been handed down as early as 11 April: a six-year prison sentence for a man prosecuted after being caught with another man in the suburbs of Dakar.
The crackdown then widened. At the end of July, eight women aged between 21 and 31 were arrested and brought before the courts on charges including ‘unnatural acts’. Their arrest marked a significant shift: until then, men had been far more prominent in proceedings relating to homosexuality.
One of the most closely followed cases involves nearly a hundred men initially implicated in a wide-ranging investigation launched at the start of the year. As the investigation progressed, some particularly serious charges were dropped against some of the accused. In early August, however, several media outlets reported that 71 men were still to be brought before the courts for offences relating in particular to ‘unnatural acts’, whilst 28 others had had the charges against them in this regard dropped. Recently, the Senegalese daily Libération, in its 31 August edition, reported on page 3: ‘47 defendants referred to the criminal court in the case of the alleged homosexuals arrested in Saint-Louis.’ This development illustrates one of the key issues for the coming months: assessing how the courts will interpret and apply the new provisions. Whilst the parliamentary vote established a particularly strict framework, it is now case law that will gradually define its contours.
To understand this reform, one must also look beyond the courts. In Senegal, the issue of homosexuality is not merely a legal debate between the majority and the opposition. It touches on religious, cultural and identity-related considerations that are deeply rooted in a predominantly Muslim society. In the weeks leading up to the vote, religious organisations and civil society movements had organised rallies calling for tougher penalties. Politicians, particularly those in power, had also framed this reform as an assertion of Senegal’s cultural sovereignty in the face of what they portray as Western pressure.
This aspect partly explains the near-unanimous nature of the vote in the National Assembly, with no MP voting against it. However, this domestic political consensus stands in stark contrast to the reactions of international human rights organisations. They have condemned the legislation, which they regard as discriminatory and likely to encourage arbitrary arrests, stigmatisation and violence against LGBT people. Front Line Defenders, in particular, has warned of the risks now facing human rights defenders working on these issues.
Another issue of concern to those working on the ground is public health. Senegal has long been cited for the success of its HIV prevention policy. However, organisations working with the most vulnerable communities fear that the crackdown may drive some gay men to avoid testing centres, prevention services or support groups. People interviewed in recent months have explained that they fear their personal data, telephone conversations or simply their use of certain facilities could lead to them being viewed with suspicion. Le Monde has, in particular, reported testimonies from people living with HIV who say they are now reluctant to visit healthcare facilities for fear of being identified or arrested. The issue therefore goes beyond that of individual freedoms: it could also become a public health concern if a section of the populations most at risk of HIV were to turn away from prevention and treatment services on a long-term basis.
Investigative methods are also a sensitive issue. Several accounts mention mobile phones being examined by investigators, with messages, photographs, videos or contacts being used in certain proceedings. This situation contributes to a climate of mistrust within the communities concerned. The consequences are difficult to quantify but are already noticeable: people are going further underground, social media is being used with caution, socialising has decreased and, for some, there is a desire to leave the country. Moreover, the pressure is not limited to those directly facing prosecution. As early as May, Le Monde reported that some lawyers were reluctant to defend people accused of homosexuality, due to social, family or religious pressure.
The shift in Senegal is not an isolated phenomenon. In recent years, several West African countries have adopted or considered tougher legislation against same-sex relationships or LGBT activism. Burkina Faso, Mali and Niger, in particular, have strengthened or introduced new criminal laws, whilst Ghana has also seen significant legislative debates on the issue. This regional trend goes hand in hand with a broader political discourse centred on the defence of ‘family values’, cultural sovereignty and the rejection of what is presented as a Western attempt to impose new social norms. In Senegal, this rhetoric finds particularly fertile ground. However, it also places Dakar in a delicate position vis-à-vis certain international partners who regard the criminalisation of consensual same-sex relationships as contrary to international human rights commitments.
At this stage, the impact of the reform cannot be reduced to the number of convictions handed down. The most profound change may lie elsewhere. By increasing penalties and broadening the range of behaviour liable to prosecution, the legislature has sent an extremely strong political signal. This has been heard by law enforcement and the judiciary as well as by those directly affected. For supporters of the legislation, the reform represents the culmination of a long-standing demand: to bring the law into line with the values that the majority of the population seeks to uphold and to prevent any public promotion of homosexuality. For its critics, on the other hand, it institutionalises discrimination and creates an environment in which a presumed sexual orientation may be enough to expose a person to denunciation, ostracism or a criminal investigation.
Almost six months after the historic vote on 11 March, one thing is already clear: Senegal has not merely increased a penalty set out in its Criminal Code. It has made the issue of homosexuality a major political, social and judicial issue. The next stage will now be played out in the courts. The trials resulting from the large-scale wave of arrests in 2026 will reveal just how far the new law can be taken in its application. And behind the debates on sovereignty, religion and fundamental rights, another question will remain: what human and public health cost will Senegal have to pay for this crackdown?
In the week following AIDS 2026 in Rio, seasoned HIV journalist Mia Malan asked in a Bhekisisa article what happens now that AIDS is no longer exceptional. After decades in which HIV commanded extraordinary political attention, scientific investment, activism and international funding, she wrote, the landscape has changed. Funding is shrinking, treatment has transformed HIV into a manageable condition for people with access to care, and the HIV response is increasingly expected to be integrated into broader health systems.
It is an important question. But from the perspective of HIV justice, I think there is another, more uncomfortable one: What happens now that HIV is no longer exceptional in global health, but it remains exceptional in law?
In the piece I wrote immediately after the conference for the Health and Human Rights Journal, I argued that the political environment surrounding HIV has become increasingly rights-threatening. The anti-rights movement is organised. It connects attacks on LGBTQ+ rights, gender equality, reproductive rights, migrants, civil society and science. Those of us defending rights too often continue to organise in silos.
And in my previous lead story for HIV Justice News, I argued that the next phase of HIV decriminalisation requires us to close the “translation gap”: the failure to translate four decades of advances in HIV science into law, policy and practice.
Now I think there is another piece of the puzzle. We need to ask whether HIV exceptionalism itself still makes sense.
There was a time when it clearly did. HIV was new, poorly understood and often fatal. Exceptional political attention and funding helped create the science, treatment and activism that transformed the epidemic. But the science has moved on. The law has not.
Slide from the Track F (Political science, laws, ethics, policies and human rights) rapporteur session at AIDS 2026
As of today, 83 countries continue to maintain HIV-specific criminal laws. But counting HIV-specific statutes substantially understates the reach of HIV criminalisation. Between 2013 and 2026, HJN’s Global HIV Criminalisation Database documented enforcement in 156 legal jurisdictions across 96 countries. Of these, 61 jurisdictions in 48 countries applied HIV-specific criminal laws, while 95 jurisdictions in 48 countries relied on general criminal offences such as assault, grievous bodily harm, attempted murder, and poisoning.
So even when an HIV-specific law is repealed, HIV exceptionalism may simply migrate into general criminal law.
There is another contradiction that deserves more attention. We continue to see, quite rightly, strong support for HIV-specific legislation that is primarily protective. Such laws can protect confidentiality, prohibit discrimination and guarantee access to prevention, testing and treatment. UNAIDS and others understandably celebrate progressive HIV legislation when it is adopted.
But many HIV omnibus laws combine those protections with punitive provisions. The same law can effectively say: we will protect you because you have HIV, and we will punish you because you have HIV. The problem, then, is not HIV-specific legislation per se. It is the continued assumption that HIV requires its own exceptional legal category, including a punitive one.
Nor is the problem confined to explicitly punitive HIV laws. Argentina provides an instructive example. Its 2022 HIV law, which replaced an old HIV-specific law following a decade-long advocacy campaign, was rightly praised for its human rights and public health approach. Yet it did not address HIV criminalisation, which continues today under general criminal law.
This leaves us with a difficult question: why do we need HIV-specific legislation to guarantee rights that should belong to everyone?
Why should access to healthcare depend on an HIV-specific law rather than universal access to healthcare?
Why should confidentiality of HIV status require special protection rather than comprehensive medical privacy?
Why should protection from discrimination depend upon being named in an HIV statute rather than comprehensive equality and anti-discrimination laws?
There were good reasons historically for HIV-specific legislation. Where governments failed to protect people living with HIV, activists had to demand specific protections. Specific laws could provide an important foothold for rights and accountability.
But perhaps we need to distinguish between using HIV exceptionalism as a strategy for securing rights and maintaining HIV exceptionalism as a permanent feature of law.
The latter increasingly makes little sense.
There is a cruel paradox here. Scientific progress has weakened the justification for HIV criminalisation at precisely the moment that declining political attention may make reform harder. This is why HIV decriminalisation remains important: it means ending a form of legal exceptionalism that has survived the scientific and public health exceptionalism that helped create it.
This is also why the HIV justice movement needs to think beyond HIV. If the anti-rights movement understands that attacks on different communities reinforce one another, we need to understand the connections too. HIV criminalisation is not an isolated legal problem. It sits alongside stigma, surveillance, discrimination, attacks on gender equality, shrinking civic space and the rejection of scientific evidence.
The response cannot simply be to preserve a special legal category for HIV. It should be to build systems in which everyone has access to healthcare, everyone has medical privacy, everyone is protected against discrimination, and criminal law does not single people out because of a health condition.
HIV advocacy helped establish many of those principles. Perhaps the next stage of HIV justice is to make those protections universal. That is not abandoning HIV justice. It is taking HIV justice to its logical conclusion.
If HIV is no longer exceptional in global health, it should not be exceptional in criminal law either.
“The evidence is overwhelming: criminalisation does not prevent HIV, it fuels it”
The scourge of LGBTQ criminalisation moving across African countries – and its impact on HIV
“The evidence is overwhelming: criminalisation does not prevent HIV – it fuels it,” Immaculate Owomugisha Bazare, Director of the Centre for Women Justice, Uganda, said in a plenary presentation at the 26th International AIDS Conference (AIDS 2026) held in Rio de Janeiro recently.
The conference had a prominent focus on how criminalisation – of identities, behaviours and HIV – impacts HIV outcomes. Research presented was mostly from sub-Saharan African countries, such as Uganda and Ghana, where criminalisation of LGBTQ people has been on the rise in recent years.
Grappling with multiple forms of criminalisation and funding cuts in Uganda
In 2023, Uganda passed the Anti-Homosexuality Act, a draconian bill aimed at criminalising LGBTQ people. This law was enacted in a context where sex work and drug use are already criminalised. “All these laws and policies continue to push people away from accessing services,” Bazare said.
Criminalisation of LGBTQ identities, behaviours such as drug use and sex work, and sex while living with HIV are intricately intertwined: key populations such as gay, bisexual and other men who have sex with men (MSM) and transgender women are at a much higher risk of contracting HIV, as are injecting drug users and sex workers. In turn, these groups can be criminalised for both how they acquired HIV and allegations of exposing others to HIV.
Bazare stated that these laws have a devastating effect on health-seeking behaviour. For a member of a key population, if any aspect of their identity is criminalised, it leads to a fear of stigma, discrimination and arrest. This results in delayed or total avoidance of HIV testing, prevention and treatment seeking. For example, if a gay man contracts HIV, any sex that he has after that is doubly criminalised: because of his identity and because he has HIV. This may be considered an act of ‘aggravated homosexuality’ according to the Ugandan Act – if the person’s sexual partner “contracts a terminal illness as a result of the sexual act.” While HIV was removed from the final wording of the Act, this clause can be left open to interpretation and likely is aimed specifically at HIV – regardless of scientific advances such as U=U – and may result in a death penalty.
The 2025 US funding freeze – which abruptly halted HIV services for key populations globally – has only added to the terror created by criminalisation in Uganda. Ruth Kikonyogo, from Save the Youth Uganda, presented research at the conference on mental health among a sample of 111 gay, bisexual and other men who have sex with men. Survey data were collected at two timepoints: after the Act was passed and after the funding freeze.
The percentage of participants reporting symptoms that matched moderate-severe depression rose by 13 percentage points, as did those reporting experiences of stigma. Exposure to violence went up by 12 percentage points, while anxiety symptoms went up by 11 percentage points and suicidal ideation by 9 percentage points. There were declines in access to both HIV services (by 14 percentage points) and psychosocial services (by 12 percentage points). Approximately 6% of the sample had fled Uganda after the Act was passed: this was reflected in the final sample size, as 142 men had initially taken the survey.
“Community-based HIV and psychosocial services serve as a critical protective factor for MSM, and their disruption magnifies the harm caused by hostile legal environments,” Kikonyogo concluded.
Ghana’s new anti-gay law
Research from other African countries showed that these negative impacts on mental health were not limited to Uganda. As Bazare put it: “The fire moves from Uganda to other countries. We’ve seen Ghana, we’ve seen Senegal now where we have specific laws that criminalise people but also criminalise HIV.”
Dr Akua Gyamerah presented research with gay and bisexual men, transgender women and gender-diverse people from Ghana, looking at whether antiretroviral therapy (ART) adherence was impacted by social stressors, such as criminalisation, through pathways such as depression, alcoholism and suicidality.
The ironically named Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill is considered the most restrictive anti-LGBTQ bill on the continent and was passed by Ghana’s parliament in May 2026. If signed into law by the president, John Mahama, it would criminalise LGBTQ identities, advocacy, gender-affirming care, allyship and any specific programming directed towards LGBTQ groups. As with other similar laws, it also encourages citizens to spy on each other and report any suspected homosexual behaviour.
Researchers created a scale to measure the frequency of social stressors linked to the anti-LGBTQ legislation. This included questions related to violence, arrests, discrimination and economic insecurity, for example: “Due to the anti-homosexuality bill/law in Ghana, I have been blackmailed or robbed.” ART non-adherence was measured as missing four consecutive doses at least once during the prior three months.
Among 256 participants with an average age of 31, approximately 40% identified as cisgender men, another 40% as transgender women and the remainder as gender diverse. Most of the sample reported their sexualities as gay, bisexual or queer. Monthly median income was low, at $100 for the sample.
Social stressors related to gender and sexuality were high: 68% had been asked about their sexuality, 31% had been blackmailed or robbed, while 17% had been threatened with death. Over a quarter of the sample did not report crimes because of fear of arrest (28%) and had been threatened with being reported to the police (27%). Just under 10% had been arrested. Overall, 23% stopped going to group programmes, such as health discussions for LGBTQ people, and 5% stopped seeking HIV services.
On average, the sample had been on ART for five years. Over the three months prior to the survey, 31% reported ART non-adherence. Over a quarter of the sample were at a significant risk of suicide (28%) and met the criteria for an alcohol use disorder (26%). On average, the sample displayed significant depressive symptoms.
While a direct association between criminalisation-related stressors and ART adherence was not significant, Gyamerah and colleagues found that greater social stressors were linked to higher depressive symptoms, alcohol use disorder and suicide risk. In particular, depressive symptoms were highlighted as a pathway through which social stressors impacted ART adherence.
“Proposed punitive legislation – not just laws – can undermine HIV treatment by increasing risk of mental health through exposure to social stressors,” Gyamerah concluded. “Structural harm is an HIV treatment issue. Protecting ART adherence requires affirming mental healthcare and opposition to structural criminalisation.”
Bazare summarised it as: “Laws and policies are not simply legal issues, they are public health issues, they are human rights issues, and they are gender equality issues.”
References
Bazare IO. Justice, rights and HIV: Building resilient legal frameworks. 26th International AIDS Conference, Rio de Janeiro, plenary session PL03, 2026.
Gyamerah A et al. Anti-LGBTQ+ legislation, mental health, and ART non-adherence among sexual minority men, trans women, and gender-diverse people living with HIV in Ghana: A mediation analysis. 26th International AIDS Conference, Rio de Janeiro, abstract OAD3906LB, 2026.
Kikonyogo R et al. One shock after another! From the anti-gay law to unexpected HIV funding cut. A comparative assessment of mental health and suicidality by men who have sex with men during these two extremes in Uganda. 26th International AIDS Conference, Rio de Janeiro, abstract OAD3902, 2026.
Translated with Deepl.com – Scroll down for original article in Russian.
Medical organisations will be required to provide the Ministry of the Interior and Rospotrebnadzor with information on infections among foreign nationals, including HIV, and cases of drug use, should such cases be identified whilst providing medical care. This was reported by the press office of the Russian Ministry of Health, according to ‘Interfax’.
The ministry has drawn up a draft order to this effect. The initiative is aimed at safeguarding the public health and epidemiological well-being of the Russian population and ensuring the accuracy of information regarding the medical assessments of foreign nationals, the ministry clarified.
The draft has been drawn up to implement the law requiring foreign nationals to undergo a medical examination within 30 days of entering Russia and annually thereafter. Foreign nationals themselves must pay for these examinations.
All medical certificates will be in electronic form and will be stored in the Unified State Healthcare Information System (EGISZ). Healthcare organisations will be required to transmit the information to the Ministry of the Interior and Rospotrebnadzor within 24 hours to prevent documents from circulating outside the system.
Russian President Vladimir Putin signed a law in June establishing a standard timeframe for compulsory medical examinations for foreign nationals. According to the document, migrant workers and foreign nationals planning to stay in Russia for more than 90 days must undergo a medical examination within 30 days of entering the country.
The examination includes testing for drug use, dangerous infectious diseases and HIV. The costs of the medical examination are borne by the foreign nationals themselves or their employers, and it may only be carried out by authorised medical organisations.
Медорганизации обяжут сообщать в МВД о ВИЧ-инфекциях иностранцев
Медицинские организации должны будут передать в МВД и Роспотребнадзор сведения об инфекциях иностранцев, в том числе о ВИЧ-инфекции, и случаях употребления наркотиков, если такие будут выявлены во время оказания медицинской помощи. Об этом сообщилив пресс-службе Минздрава России, передает «Интерфакс».
Ведомство разработало соответствующий проект приказа. Инициатива направлена на сохранение санитарно-эпидемического благополучия населения России и обеспечение достоверности сведений о медзаключениях граждан других стран, уточнили в министерстве.
Проект разработан для реализации закона, обязующего иностранцев проходить медосмотр в течение 30 дней с моменте въезда в Россию и далее ежегодно. При этом оплачивать прохождение осмотра должны сами граждане других стран.
Все медицинские заключения будут в электронной форме, их разместят в Единой государственной информационной системе здравоохранения (ЕГИСЗ). В течение суток медорганизации должны будут передать информацию в МВД и Роспотребнадзор, чтобы избежать оборота документов вне системы.
Президент России Владимир Путин подписал закон, устанавливающий единый срок обязательного медицинского освидетельствования для иностранных граждан, в июне. Согласно документу, проходить медосмотр в течение 30 дней после въезда в страну должны трудовые мигранты и иностранцы, планирующие находиться в России более 90 дней.
Обследование включает проверку на употребление наркотических веществ, наличие опасных инфекционных заболеваний и ВИЧ. Расходы на медосвидетельствование возлагаются на самих иностранцев или их работодателей, а проводить его смогут только уполномоченные медицинские организации.
Senegal: Harsh penalties for same-sex relations is severely disrupting HIV services
The introduction of harsh penalties for same-sex relations has created a climate of fear that is severely disrupting HIV services. Gilbert Nakweya reports.
Patients in Senegal are forgoing critical HIV care, including testing and antiretroviral drugs (ARVs), for fear of arrest or abuse following the implementation of a controversial anti-gay law. The law, which came into force at the beginning of April, 2026, has introduced harsher penalties, including doubling the maximum prison sentence to 10 years for “acts against nature“ and criminalising promotion of homosexuality. According to the HIV Justice Network, over 200 people have been arrested and dozens jailed under the law while others have been accused of deliberately transmitting HIV to others. The Network has also documented dozens of reports of forced HIV testing.
Patients have been left living in fear and others have gone to neighbouring countries such as The Gambia and Morocco. Amadu*, a gay man aged in his 30s, knew his life was in danger in March and April when arrests increased and his close gay friends were jailed. Worried about being arrested himself and running out of medication, he fled to a neighbouring country. “I was not able to access ARVs as access to clinics is dangerous. I had to leave Senegal within less than 12 hours. I couldn’t get enough ARV pills before leaving as time and risk management didn’t allow for that”, he told The Lancet.
“My economic privilege helped me escape, but I personally know of dozens of people who can’t leave for economic reasons yet they cannot access [HIV treatment] services”, said Amadu. “I rely on my network in this country to get medication, but there is always fear here as well. I know at least 20 other people who have had to leave Senegal for the same reason as me, some of them are also HIV positive and struggle to get medication”.
Speaking on condition of anonymity, one Senegalese public health expert who works with Mpact Global, a gay men’s health and rights advocacy non-governmental organisation, said that the new law is only worsening the risky environment for community health organisations helping LGBTQ+ groups access HIV preventive and treatment services. “An increase in HIV incidence among men who have sex with men should be anticipated with the legal changes and the social climate it has propagated. I haven’t seen official numbers but have heard anecdotes of people deserting HIV services facilities. There are reports of lower utilization of HIV services since the law was passed in March”, he said. There is some precedent for such an effect. The high-profile arrest of nine HIV peer educators in Senegal in 2008 had a chilling effect on LGBTQ+ organisations. Although no formal correlation has been established, HIV prevalence in gay men went from 17·8% in 2014 to 27·6% in 2024, according to CNLS (the National Council for the Fight Against HIV/AIDS), the government body responsible for coordinating efforts to combat HIV in Senegal.
The expert says that the biggest HIV service facility in the country, Fann National University Hospital, is experiencing a dearth of clients with the few who show up wearing sunglasses or hoodies to avoid being recognised and targeted. Community health workers who were engaged in HIV testing, treatment, and prevention services, such as distribution of condoms, HIV-preventive pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) medication, and monitoring patients, have been arrested. “The laws are incompatible with public health and human rights. Decriminalisation, competent and adequate health services, and measures against stigma and discrimination are the only sustainable ways out”, he said.
Even health workers in government are worried. “The situation is quite complicated here. I just want to be careful to protect our patients”, said a senior public health officer who works with CNLS.
Senegal’s HIV response has already been weakened by US funding cuts on international assistance that came into force in January, 2025. The HIV prevalence among men who have sex with men is estimated to be 27·6%, compared with 0·5% in the general population.
Researchers warn that Senegal’s criminalisation of homosexuality is reversing years of gains in HIV control. “Such punitive laws [as Senegal’s] and policies have shown no evidence for effectiveness as public health approaches. They undermine both public health and human rights and have led to declines in HIV testing, use of PrEP, and support for people living with HIV infection in Uganda, Nigeria, and several other countries”, said Chris Beyrer, Professor of Medicine at Duke University, Durham, NC, USA. “This is very disappointing as Senegal had been on a path to achieving HIV control. These new policies will set the country back and only further discrimination and stigma.”
“Denying people health rights, regardless of their behaviour, drives people underground and does not improve public health”, Beyrer told The Lancet.
You can select your preferred language from the 'Select Language' menu at the top of the page.
Continue
We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. By continuing to use our site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. You can change your cookie settings at any time if you want. Find out more in our Privacy & Cookie Policy.
