Senegal: National Assembly to examine new bill that increases penalties for same-sex relations

“We find ourselves in prison alongside criminals”, a bill provides for doubling the penalties against homosexuality

The National Assembly of Senegal must examine on Wednesday, March 11, a bill to toughen the repression of homosexuality, with penalties of up to ten years in prison. This initiative comes in a climate of tension marked by arrests and criticism from human rights organizations.

The deputies of the National Assembly of Senegal will meet in plenary session on Wednesday, March 11, 2026 to examine a bill aimed at strengthening sanctions against same-sex relations. According to a document from the single chamber of Parliament received by AFP, the text provides for doubling the penalties incurred, which could reach up to ten years in prison.

The bill was made public last month by Prime Minister Ousmane Sonko. In addition to the tightening of sentences for homosexual relations, it also plans to punish anyone who “apology” homosexuality with three to seven years in prison.

A wave of arrests in recent weeks

The parliamentary debate comes in a context of increased repression against people suspected of homosexuality. In early February, 12 men, including two local celebrities, were arrested and charged with “unnatural acts”, an expression used to refer to same-sex relationships.

According to the local press, this operation was followed by a series of almost daily arrests of at least 30 people. Some would have been identified as a result of complaints or searches of their phones.

In several cases, the media published the names of the arrested persons. A practice that led the Council for the Observance of the Rules of Ethics and Deontology in the Media (CORED) to remind editorial offices of the importance of respecting “human dignity” and the “privacy of individuals”.

On the spot, the gay community lives in fear. At RTL’s microphone, El Hadj confides that he no longer dares to leave his small apartment in Dakar except to go to work. “You wake up one fine day and you hear that we have caught five people, the next day you hear that we have caught two, that’s what happens. Because of your sexual orientation you are in danger, and that should not be the case in 2026”.

A feeling he shares with his friend now living in France, who was arrested in 2021 for homosexuality. “I’ve been in prison for three months, we don’t hurt anyone. We find ourselves in prison alongside criminals,” he said on RTL’s microphone.

A sensitive subject in a very religious country

Mostly Muslim and deeply religious, Senegal widely considers homosexuality as a deviance. In some recent cases, arrested people have also been accused of deliberately transmitting HIV, which has fueled virulent anti-homosexual rhetoric.

The tightening of legislation is also an old promise of the ruling camp, politically promising in the country. For several years, very influential religious associations have been calling for more severe criminalization of homosexuality, regularly calling on the authorities to strengthen sanctions.

Outdated HIV criminal laws under scrutiny in Central Asia

Not only disease: how HIV turns into a criminal case

When Aziza (name changed) came to work in a beauty salon in Tashkent that morning, she did not expect that she would soon become a defendant in a criminal case. Her HIV status, which had previously remained part of a medical secret, became known and turned out to be not just personal information, but a legal fact.

At that time, Uzbekistan had a list of professions prohibited for people living with HIV. Today it has been significantly reduced and it mainly concerns medical specialties, but then the restrictions were wider. Work in the field of beauty was prohibited.

In itself, employment in the salon was qualified as “deliberingly placing another person at risk of HIV infection”. In other words, the risk was assumed automatically – without the need to prove the real threat of virus transmission. There were no scientific grounds for this approach: HIV is not transmitted through household contacts, and if standard sanitary standards are observed, work in the salon does not pose an epidemiological danger.

Nevertheless, a criminal case was opened against the woman under Article 113 of the Criminal Code – “Spreation of venereal disease or HIV/AIDS infection”. The court found her guilty, despite the absence of facts of infection transmission or actions that create a real risk.

A similar article is present in the Criminal Code of Tajikistan – 125 – “HIV infection”.

Later, Aziza, trying to earn a living, faced problems again. The employee of the internal affairs bodies actually disclosed her diagnosis publicly, despite the fact that information about the state of health is classified as confidential and is subject to protection. Employees who work with such cases are required to undergo special training and take into account both medical and legal aspects, including the requirement to maintain medical confidentiality. However, in practice, these norms are not always observed – including due to a lack of understanding of confidentiality responsibilities.

Aziza was convicted under the norm, which was later revised. The restrictions were recognized as unjustified, and the list of prohibited professions was significantly reduced.

As of December 1, 2025, according to the Republican AIDS Center of Uzbekistan, 52 thousand people with HIV live in the country. As of September 30, 2025, 13,045 people living with HIV were registered in Tajikistan.

In 2023, 20 cases were recorded in Uzbekistan when people living with HIV became suspects, interrogated and brought to justice under Article 113 of the Criminal Code. According to the HIV Justice Network, from 2008 to 2026, 442 cases related to the criminalization of HIV were registered in the country.

In Tajikistan, according to specialized studies, 64% of people living with HIV report cases of discrimination, including from medical workers. At the same time, there are virtually no mechanisms for reviewing such cases, rehabilitation or compensation for damage. Even after the change in legislation, the consequences for convicts remain – legal, social and professional. The system adjusts the norms, but does not restore fate.

The criminal article automatically reveals the diagnosis

A person living with HIV, who leads a full life, builds relationships and does not violate medical prescriptions, under certain legal conditions may find himself in the status of a potential accused. And this despite the fact that other norms of legislation are directly enshrined: HIV status cannot serve as a basis for discrimination.

“The problem is that the criminal article itself automatically discloses the diagnosis: if a person is tried under the article on the spread of HIV, his status becomes obvious. This violates the confidentiality of the diagnosis and, accordingly, the right to privacy. Thus, a person not only gets a criminal record, but also faces the disclosure of his diagnosis,” says Timur Abdullayev, a consultant on law and public health.

There are also problems with employment. As a rule, these are episodic cases, information about which reaches public figures. Many cases remain unknown because people are afraid to take any steps not to reveal their diagnosis.

“If the law itself creates discrimination, it cannot be called good. The paradox is that the HIV prevention law explicitly states the inadmissibility of discrimination in the field of labor and education. But at the same time, there are norms according to which a person can be brought to justice simply for the fact that he continues to work. As a result, there is a contradiction: discrimination is formally prohibited, but in fact it is possible”.

According to Zebo Kassymova, a lawyer representing the interests of women living with HIV within the framework of the Global Fund project in Tajikistan, under Article 125, as in Uzbekistan, the majority of applicants are women.

“Article 125 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Tatarstan is discriminatory against people living with HIV in terms of respect and observance of human rights,” she says.

The article provides for a composition not only for intentional transmission of HIV, but also for endangering HIV infection. According to the lawyer, almost all PLWH who have sexual contact fall under this article, and thus this norm deprives PLWH of the right to sexual health as an element of the right to physical and mental health.

“And this disposition does not take into account the informed consent of the other partner, does not take into account such moments as the use of condoms as a means of safety during sexual contact or the unidentified viral load, in which HIV is not transmitted according to the latest scientific research, the “window period” during which HIV is detected (from 3 to 6 months),” she says.

The legislation does not define the ways of HIV transmission. Meanwhile, until recently, the courts issued convictions only if there was HIV status, regardless of whether there was a risk of infection or not, says Zebo Kassymova.

Depression and lack of rehabilitation

Aziza, whose HIV status was revealed, was in a serious psychological state for a long time. At the same time, she had a small child who needed to be supported.

“She was deprived of her last source of income. Moreover, this was done by the state, which convicted it under an article that would actually no longer be applied today – her profession is no longer on the list of prohibited,” says Timur Abdullayev, a consultant on law and public health.

Aziza’s criminal record has already been extinguished, but rehabilitation has not been carried out. At the same time, the very fact of the investigation, trial and sentence still affects her life.

Almost all Central Asian countries have retained the criminalizing articles inherited from the Soviet period, although they were partially revised and edited over time.

“The problem is that the very concept of “knowness”, which is used in such articles, is legally blurred. The Criminal Code does not explain what exactly “knowingly” means. Knowledge is not an element of the crime – such an element is intent,” Abdullayev notes.

This article appeared back in the 1980s, when it was believed that criminal prosecution would help stop the epidemic. Forty years have passed – the article remained, the epidemic has not disappeared anywhere, says the expert.

There are cases of discrimination on the basis of HIV, but the problem is that there is no system that would record them. There are no studies and regular monitoring. As a result, we get a paradoxical situation: there is no monitoring system – it means that there are no problems, says the expert.

Timur Abdullayev says that in Uzbekistan it would be possible to study what discrimination people with HIV face, but there was not enough money and specialists for this. They wanted to include this item in the international application for funding, but it was not approved – and in the end the study was not conducted.

The expert notes that the full picture of the situation is not visible, and reports of violations appear regularly, especially when the diagnosis is disclosed.

“For example, a person is tested for HIV, he receives a call from a medical institution, and if he is not there, they can tell relatives that they need to come to the center. It used to happen regularly, but even now such cases pop up periodically.”

The UN Committee on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women recommended that Uzbekistan repeal the article criminalizing the transmission of HIV, especially its part on “at risk of infection”. The logic is simple: women suffer disproportionately from this norm, so it is considered discriminatory by the Committee. “But there was no reaction. The article was and remained,” Abdullayev says.

Decision

International organizations such as the UN, UNAIDS and the World Health Organization (WHO) are actively opposing the criminalization of HIV. According to their recommendations, criminal liability for HIV should be limited only to cases of intentional transmission of HIV infection, when a person knowingly and intentionally infects another.

In Armenia, the provision on “leavement in danger” was excluded, retaining responsibility for the actual transmission of infection – intentional or negligent.

In the United States, some states still criminalize HIV transmission, while others have abandoned such norms. At the same time, studies show that the presence or absence of such articles does not have a statistically significant impact on the level of infection spread.

There are two problems here. The first is the automatic disclosure of the diagnosis: if the article directly mentions HIV, the very fact of criminal prosecution makes the diagnosis public. The second is a wide space for abuse. There are situations when after the conflict one partner writes an application for the other, although both of them knew about the diagnosis for a long time.

In many countries – Belarus, Kazakhstan, Moldova, Russia, Kyrgyzstan – the legislation has been amended, according to which responsibility does not come if the partner was aware of the HIV status and voluntarily took a possible risk. Similar changes are currently being discussed in Tajikistan.

The situation in Tajikistan

On December 26, 2023, Tajikistan began the process of decriminalizing responsibility for endangering HIV infection and transmission in order to ensure justice for people living with HIV.

The new resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Tatarstan “On judicial practice in criminal cases related to human immunodeficiency virus infection” offers the courts to consider issues related to criminal liability under Article 125 of the Criminal Code more objectively. The resolution obliges judicial practice to be based on new norms that take into account international standards and recommendations.

“The Plenum Resolution is encouraging because it allows for a more fair interpretation of existing laws, but it does not establish new laws and does not change the Criminal Code, which still criminalizes HIV transmission. This step towards a fairer legal framework was the result of joint efforts of the Supreme Court and civil society organizations, as well as long-term advocacy of UNAIDS, UNDP and the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, which reflects a holistic and inclusive approach to solving complex legal issues related to HIV,” says Zebo Kassymova, a lawyer from Dushanbe.

The article duplicates the norms

Timur Abdullayev believes that the need for a separate article on HIV in criminal legislation raises serious doubts. According to him, when it is proposed to cancel a special norm, most often there is an objection: “But then how to qualify the harm?”.

However, he notes, most criminal codes already provide for articles on causing harm to health – mild, moderate and severe, and the regulations explicitly indicate that biological impact can also be considered harm to health. In this sense, a separate article on HIV actually duplicates the existing norms. “In fact, the coordinated work of several departments and explanations is enough – and the need for a separate article disappears,” he emphasizes.

Abdullayev also draws attention to the widespread argument of law enforcement agencies that without a special article, people will allegedly begin to infect others en masse. He calls it a myth, emphasizing: “This norm has never stopped the spread of infection”. In his opinion, the price of her existence is too high – people get criminal records without committed actions that would really deserve criminal punishment.

The expert reminds that in case of cancellation of the special article, general norms on causing harm to health may be applied. According to him, in the practice of Uzbekistan, HIV transmission is often actually equated to serious bodily harm, which creates a disproportion to the punishment. As a result, several problems arise at once: there is a separate article, the application of which causes difficulties, and there is no sufficient judicial explanations, which increases legal uncertainty.

The organization “Ishonch va hayot” proposes to limit criminal liability in Uzbekistan only to cases of intentional transmission of HIV – when it is proven that a person knew about his HIV-positive status, acted with the direct intention of transmitting the virus and the infection really occurred.

Aziza’s story is not an isolated case, but an example of how legal norms can survive their time and continue to break lives. Until the legislation is brought into line with modern medicine and the principles of confidentiality, people with HIV will live not only with a diagnosis, but also with a constant risk of being accused.

Senegal: Arrests and breach of medical confidentiality trigger drop in HIV testing and treatment attendance

“Violation of medical confidentiality”: in Senegal, caregivers worried about allegations against homosexuals with HIV

In Senegal, people have been incriminated for their homosexuality and accused of HIV transmission. These arrests follow the announcement by Prime Minister Ousmane Sonko of the tightening of the law penalizing “unnatural acts”. Since these arrests, the actors in the fight against AIDS have seen a decrease in attendance at screening centers.

“Arrest for homosexuality: serious cases of unnatural acts with voluntary transmission of HIV/AIDS,” headlined the Senegalese daily Les Échos, on February 9. About thirty people have been accused of transmitting HIV and incriminated for their homosexuality, which is prohibited by law. The Senegalese government has just toughened this legislation on February 24. These arrests frighten patients with the virus, who no longer go to the Dakar screening center.

“Patients are afraid of being arrested and stigmatized,” explains Dr. Rassoul Diouf, at Fane Hospital, one of Senegal’s main health centers. Usually, this facility welcomes dozens of patients daily for HIV testing and monitoring. But in recent weeks, Dr. Rassoul Diouf has seen a significant drop in consultations.”The convocations for appointments are difficult to happen. We call them but there is reluctance,” he explains to TV5MONDE.

Breach of medical confidentiality

For the actors in the fight against AIDS, this disclosure constitutes a “violation of medical confidentiality“. The National AIDS Council recalls that a law in Senegal protects the identity of people with HIV.

“On an ethical level, this is not normal, but even less on a legal level,” says Dr. Safiatou Thiam, executive secretary of the National Council for the fight against AIDS. “HIV has the particularity of being framed by a law that prohibits the disclosure of people’s status. We do not know how or by what process medical results ended up in the public square,” she explains to TV5MONDE.

Misinformation and confusion about HIV transmission

Actors in the fight against AIDS also deplore confusion about the modes of transmission of the virus. However, Senegal has long been cited as an example for the means put in place to fight HIV. Since the end of the 1990s, the country made treatments accessible. “At the beginning of the epidemic [of HIV, ed.], many countries refused to recognize its existence. But Senegal said: not only does HIV exist, but I will treat it,” explains Dr. Khoudia Sow, doctor and anthropologist.

“When a person follows his treatment properly, he becomes undetectable and can no longer transmit the virus. On the other hand, if these people interrupt their treatment for fear of stigmatization, the risk is that in the short term new transmissions will appear,” she confides. Currently, the HIV prevalence rate in Senegal is estimated at 0.3%, one of the lowest in the region. However, if patients stop taking their treatment, for fear of stigma, this rate could increase in Senegal.

US: HIV criminalisation laws expose Black Americans to disproportionate arrest and prosecution rates

“Look at who’s in political control”: How HIV disclosure laws are steeped in racial bias

HIV criminalization arose in an atmosphere of fearful ignorance, disproportionately harming Black men. But activists are fighting back.

Today, 32 states have laws that criminalize people living with HIV (PLWH). These laws expose PLWH to the risk of prosecution and incarceration for engaging in consensual sexual activity while not disclosing their status. Of those states, 28 enhance criminal penalties based on an individual’s knowledge of their HIV status. In many of these states, arrests and convictions due to HIV criminalization disproportionately impact Black populations, because HIV disproportionately impacts Black populations.

A new study of 16 states by the Williams Institute shows Black Americans are more likely than any other race to be arrested and convicted for HIV-related allegations, and were arrested for HIV-related crimes at higher rates than their overall share of the population. In 64% of the states analyzed, Black Americans faced higher rates of arrest than their share of PLWH in the state. In 75% of the states, Black Americans were convicted at higher rates than their share of PLWH in the state.

Legislation criminalizing the transmission of HIV started in the 1980s, in response to events largely fueled by fear that the AIDS epidemic — which at the time was perceived as gay men’s disease, and was originally called Gay Related Immunodeficiency Syndrome (GRID) — would spread to heterosexuals. In 1987, Ronald Reagan’s Presidential Commission on the HIV Epidemic recommended that states adopt HIV-specific laws in response to rising infection rates among gay men, based on the belief that existing assault laws were too lenient to serve as a deterrent.

In 1990, the Ryan White Comprehensive AIDS Resource Emergency (CARE) Act was enacted, providing funding to states on the condition that their criminal laws addressed intentional HIV exposure and transmission.

Subsequently, flurries of punitive legislation arose amid highly publicized, sensationalized cases involving young Black men, such as that of Nushawn Williams in the late 1990s. Accused of having sex with younger women while HIV-positive, Williams pleaded guilty to reckless endangerment and statutory rape and was sentenced to 12 years in prison. He remains imprisoned after serving his sentence because the New York attorney general initiated involuntary civil commitment proceedings against him just days before his release.

“Available research confirms what we knew back then — criminal laws do not reduce HIV transmission or the behavior that causes it,” says Catherine Hanssens, the founding executive director of The Center for HIV Law and Policy.

Robert Suttle, an HIV criminalization policy expert, tells LGBTQ Nation that these laws became more about control than prevention. “HIV criminalization became a proxy to control certain populations — queer people, sex workers — especially to stop people diagnosed with HIV from having sex,” says Sutter. “It’s never worked.”

Indeed, recent studies have found that HIV criminalization laws have “no detectable prevention effect.”

Not only do HIV criminalization laws, conceived at a time when an HIV diagnosis was essentially considered a death sentence, fail as preventative measures, but they also eliminate burdens of proof and intent to do harm, which are required under criminal law.

Most of these laws only require simple exposure with the failure to disclose HIV status. Most state laws don’t require evidence of transmission or intent to harm. Several target interactions in which spit and other bodily fluids come into contact with law enforcement, correctional employees, and first responders, criminalizing behavior that has no chance of transmitting HIV.

Again, these laws — which have stood for decades — reflect a time when little was known about how HIV was spread, and a diagnosis was considered fatal.

Black bodies on trial: The case of “Tiger Mandingo”

The case of Michael Johnson, also known by his screen name “Tiger Mandingo,” illustrates many of the problems with HIV-criminalization laws and how they intersect with the historic policing of Black Americans.

Johnson, a Black gay wrestler at Linwood University in St. Charles, Missouri, was arrested in 2013 for not disclosing his HIV-positive status to six former male sex partners, four of whom were white. At the time, Missouri’s law required PLWH to inform their partners of their status, regardless of safe-sex practices. The law did not require intent to transmit or actual transmission of HIV, but only that a person was aware of their status and unable to prove that they informed their partners before engaging in sex.

Johnson faced a stacked deck before his trial even started. Of the 51 potential jurors, only one was non-white. Half said they believed being gay was a choice, and two-thirds believed it was a sin. All were straight, HIV-negative, and believed that PLWH who do not disclose to their partners deserved to be prosecuted. The final jury consisted of four white men, seven white women, and one retired Black nurse. Most of the jurors appeared to be in their 50s or 60s.

Several discrepancies arose during Johnson’s trial. Johnson maintained that he disclosed his status and that all of his partners engaged in consensual sex without condoms. Each of his partners testified that they’d asked if he was “clean” or STD-free, and that he’d assured them that he was. This contradicted what they initially told police. But the jury never heard of these discrepancies, either because his defense attorney failed to raise them or because she was overruled when she did.

Telling people that they are a potential criminal based only on a diagnosed health condition is harmful, particularly to people who have been told for centuries that they are not worthy of equal treatment under the law based on race, sexual orientation, or gender identity.”

Catherine Hanssens, executive director of The Center for HIV Law and Policy.

One partner testified that Johnson had actually infected him, but told the police he’d told Johnson he was HIV-positive when he met him. No genetic evidence linked Johnson’s strain of HIV to the virus in the other men, suggesting that they may have contracted it from someone else.

The prosecution employed stereotypical tropes. Images of Johnson’s penis — from a sex video made with one of his partners — were shown to the nearly all-white, all heterosexual, HIV-negative jury, literally criminalizing his “contagious” Black body, and reducing him to his sex organ, described in graphic, lurid detail in police reports and on the witness stand as “very large” and “too tight” for condoms.

In 2015, the jury sentenced him to 30 years for transmitting HIV without disclosure to six former sexual partners, and 30.5 years for exposing four others without disclosure, for a total of 60.5 years — a longer sentence than many convicted of involuntary manslaughter. The judge ultimately reduced the sentence to 30 years.

However, Johnson served only a fraction of his sentence. His conviction was overturned in December 2016 due to egregious prosecutorial misconduct. Johnson accepted a plea deal and was released from prison on July 7, 2019.

In 2021, Missouri reformed its HIV-criminalization law, downgrading “reckless exposure” of someone to HIV from a Class B felony to a Class D felony. Moving away from the AIDS panic of the 1980s, the law applies to all “serious infections and communicable diseases,” instead of singling out HIV. Prosecutors must now prove someone “knowingly” exposed someone to HIV.

Policing Black bodies in a culture of fear

While HIV criminalization laws were originally targeted at gay men, they represent a small number of actual arrests.

“Based on the best data available, women of color who are sex workers and Black men targeted by police or those currently incarcerated make up most of the arrests and convictions,” Hanssen says.

Hanssen also describes how HIV criminalization laws don’t necessarily impact transmission, but may discourage vulnerable communities from accessing essential resources. “As I’ve suggested, laws based on myths and misconceptions surrounding HIV will perpetuate HIV stigma,” Hanssen said.

HIV-related stigma creates real obstacles for PLWH. The behaviors often associated with acquiring HIV — such as being gay or using intravenous drugs — are still stigmatized, and confirming or disclosing one’s HIV status is still widely perceived as socially dangerous. HIV-related stigma can discourage testing and prevention practices. Individuals may fear confirming their HIV status, let alone accessing education about transmission and prevention. HIV criminalization laws increase those fears.

“But look at who’s in political control — and who controls public health and the legal system. Those systems get off the hook by shifting blame to individuals. Instead of investing money into prevention, education, and awareness, they criminalize people.”

Robert Suttle, an HIV criminalization policy expert

“Telling a newly diagnosed person they will be prosecuted as a felon if they expose another person to HIV may not discourage them from having sex,” she said, “but it might discourage them from entering and staying in health care, particularly when medical mistrust is already so high among the vulnerable populations targeted by these laws.”

This is especially true for Black Americans, among whom medical mistrust may be a deeply rooted reaction to historical exploitation by incidents like the Tuskegee experiment and ongoing systemic racism.

Suttle explains how these laws cause particular harm to Black LGBTQ+ people by creating a culture of fear. “Is the public health system or legal system helping the people they claim to protect?” he asks, “The evidence shows they’re doing more harm than good.”

“For Black people — especially Black LGBTQ+ people — HIV isn’t just a medical condition,” he says. “It’s shaped by laws, policies, and institutions that operate from a culture of fear rather than science, and from control rather than care.”

Hanssen echoes Suttle, saying, “Telling people that they are a potential criminal based only on a diagnosed health condition is harmful, particularly to people who have been told for centuries that they are not worthy of equal treatment under the law based on race, sexual orientation, or gender identity.”

“There is now plenty of evidence demonstrating how HIV criminal laws increase stigma,” says Catherine Hanssens. “These laws create a uniquely harmful, un-American legal standard and produce felony penalties rooted in lack of knowledge about HIV transmission – that alone is enough to demand their repeal.”

Reforms vs. real change

Thanks to the work of state-based organizations like Free State Justice in Maryland, Equality California, and Washington State’s HIV Justice Network, so far, eight states have taken steps to reform their HIV criminalization laws, though not all have repealed them.

California and Washington State have made the biggest changes. Now, both states require proof that someone intended to transmit HIV or actually did so before they can be convicted. They have also removed most laws that made exposure to HIV or other diseases a crime, except in some cases involving sex offenders. Intentional transmission is now a misdemeanor in California, with a maximum sentence of six months, or in Washington State, 30 days.

By comparison:

North Carolina still connects criminal liability to viral load and engagement in care.
Iowa eliminated its sex offender registry requirement and tightened up intent requirements, but added “recklessness” as a standard for liability.
Virginia reformed its bill, but retains felony-level offenses.

Beyond reforms to state laws, Suttle suggests a paradigm shift away from focusing on individuals and toward the legal and justice systems is necessary for effective change.

“In an individualistic society, if HIV is happening, it’s treated like we [PLWH] caused it,” he says. “But no single individual can cause an epidemic. Instead of addressing external factors — poverty, lack of education, lack of access to healthcare — systems punish individuals. Those conditions are by design, not because people ‘created’ HIV.”

“But look at who’s in political control — and who controls public health and the legal system. Those systems get off the hook by shifting blame to individuals. Instead of investing money into prevention, education, and awareness, they criminalize people.”

“For Black LGBTQ communities, this is a matter of survival,” Suttle says. “HIV in America today isn’t simply defined by medicine. It’s defined by whether laws and institutions will catch up with science, provide equity, and understand the reality we’re living in.”

Subscribe to the LGBTQ Nation newsletter and be the first to know about the latest headlines shaping LGBTQ+ communities worldwide.

Terrance Heath is a longtime LGBT equality activist, writer, and award winning blogger. He lives in Chevy Chase, Maryland, with his two sons.

US: Report from the Williams Institute examines how HIV stigma contributes to HIV criminalisation

HIV stigma is pervasive and increasing among US adults

This study uses data from the nationally representative General Social Survey to assess the prevalence of HIV stigma in the U.S. and examine the ways HIV stigma contributes to the criminalisation of people living with HIV.

The full brief can be downloaded here: https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/HIV-Stigma-Feb-2026.pdf

Senegal: CNLS issues guidelines on medical confidentiality and HIV care in prisons

Medical records and HIV: The CNLS imposes a strict ban targeting the prison administration

Health management in places of deprivation of liberty in Senegal is undergoing a major overhaul. In response to human rights issues, the National Council for the Fight against AIDS (CNLS) has issued a strategic guidance note detailing care protocols. According to information reported by the newspaper Le Quotidien, this approach aims to establish clear rules regarding the monitoring of people living with the virus in prisons.

The central point of this directive concerns medical confidentiality. The Executive Secretariat of the CNLS prohibits the disclosure of prisoners’ HIV status. In practical terms, the medical records of prisoners living with HIV (Pvvih) must be kept separate from the records managed by the prison administration. These documents remain the sole responsibility of the medical staff assigned to the infirmary.

The CNLS text also includes a scientific clarification intended for the day-to-day management of detention. The document specifies that an inmate carrying the virus can live in the community and share the same cell as other inmates without any risk of transmission.

From a medical standpoint, the protocol applied is in line with international standards, guaranteeing inmates the same care as the general population. Consultations are carried out in health centres or specialised hospital services, under the supervision of the prison medical service. Our editorial team also notes that HIV testing in prison is not compulsory; it is offered with the prisoner’s free consent, after psychosocial support.

The system provides for a full medical assessment upon incarceration. If the new arrival is already undergoing antiretroviral treatment, contact is established with their treating physician to prevent any interruption in treatment, a known factor in virus resistance. This initial examination also makes it possible to identify other comorbidities such as diabetes, hypertension or substance use disorders.

To support the implementation of these guidelines, the CNLS is rolling out training and advocacy sessions in the field. These meetings are aimed directly at professionals working in prisons, including senior nurses, warders and directors of detention and correctional centres (MACs).

Medical records and HIV: The CNLS fixe une interdiction stricte ciblant l’administration pénitentiaire

La gestion de la santé dans les lieux de privation de liberté au Sénégal fait l’objet d’un recadrage précis. Face aux enjeux liés aux droits humains, le Conseil National de Lutte contre le Sida (Cnls) a diffusé une note d’orientation stratégique détaillant les protocoles de prise en charge. Selon les informations rapportées par le journal Le Quotidien, cette démarche vise à instaurer des règles claires concernant le suivi des personnes vivant avec le virus au sein des prisons.

Le point central de cette directive concerne le secret médical. Le Secrétariat exécutif du Cnls pose l’interdiction de divulguer le statut sérologique des détenus. Concrètement, le dossier médical d’un détenu vivant avec le VIH (Pvvih) doit être impérativement séparé des dossiers gérés par l’Administration pénitentiaire. Ce document reste sous la responsabilité exclusive du personnel soignant affecté à l’infirmerie.

Le texte du Cnls intègre également une mise au point scientifique destinée à la gestion quotidienne de la détention. Le document précise qu’un détenu porteur du virus peut vivre en communauté et partager la même cellule que les autres pensionnaires sans aucun risque de transmission.

Sur le plan médical, le protocole appliqué s’aligne sur les normes internationales, garantissant aux détenus les mêmes soins qu’à la population générale. Les consultations s’effectuent dans des centres de santé ou des services hospitaliers spécialisés, sous la supervision du service médical carcéral. Notre rédaction note également que le dépistage du VIH au sein de la prison n’est soumis à aucune obligation ; il est proposé avec le libre consentement du détenu, après un accompagnement psychosocial.

Le dispositif prévoit une évaluation médicale complète dès l’incarcération. Si le nouvel arrivant suit déjà un traitement antirétroviral, une liaison avec son médecin traitant est établie pour prévenir toute rupture thérapeutique, un facteur connu de résistance au virus. Cet examen initial permet dans le même temps d’identifier d’autres comorbidités telles que le diabète, l’hypertension ou les troubles liés à l’usage de substances.

Pour accompagner l’application de ces directives, le Cnls déploie des sessions de formation et de plaidoyer sur le terrain. Ces rencontres ciblent directement les professionnels intervenant en milieu carcéral, notamment les infirmiers major, les surveillants et les directeurs des Maisons d’arrêt et de correction (Mac).

U.S. Representative introduces resolution for the designation of February 28 as ‘‘HIV is Not a Crime Awareness Day’’

Press release

Today, U.S. Representative Mark Pocan (WI-02), Chair of the HIV/AIDS Caucus, introduced the HIV Is Not a Crime Awareness Day resolution, which recognizes nationwide February 28 as “HIV Is Not a Crime Awareness Day.” This is a call to action to end the criminalization of people living with HIV and to promote science-based public health policy.

“In 2026, it should not be a crime to live with HIV, but in nearly 3/4ths of the states, there are still HIV-specific exposure or transmission laws, and more than half of the states impose enhanced criminal penalties based solely on a person’s HIV status. That is wrong. It’s long past time to remove the stigma of HIV/AIDS. This resolution will encourage the repeal of outdated laws, promote medically accurate HIV education, and support increased funding for prevention, treatment, and care. Having a disease should not be a crime. Plain and simple.”

Co-sponsors include: Mark Pocan (WI-02), Steve Cohen (TN-09), Danny Davis (IL-07), Josh Gottheimer (NJ-05), LaMonica McIver (NJ-10), Gwen Moore (WI-04), Eleanor Holmes Norton (DC), Delia Ramirez (IL-03), Mark Takano (CA-39), Bonnie Watson Coleman (NJ-12)

Endorsing organizations include: Advocates for Youth, AIDS United, ANEA Coalition, Center for Health Law and Policy Innovation, Equality Federation, Health Not Prisons Collective, HIV Medicine Association, HIV+Hepatitis Policy Institute, National Working Positive Coalition, National Working Positive Coalition, PWN-NYS, Ribbon-A Center of Excellence, SAGE, Save HIV Funding Campaign, SIECUS: Sex Ed for Social Change, Strategies for High Impact, The Elizabeth Taylor AIDS Foundation, U.S. People Living with HIV Caucus, ALINT Consulting, Association of Nurses in AIDS Care, Florida National Organization for Women, Miss Trans Star National, NASTAD, NHAAN, NMAC, Positive Women’s Network-USA, PrEP4All, Pwn-Pa, RiseUpToHIV, SisterReach, The 6:52 Project Foundation, The Center for HIV Law and Policy, The Sero Project, The Well Project, Treatment Action Group, Women’s Health & Evolutionary Wellness, AIDS Foundation Chicago, Colorado Organizations and Individuals Responding to HIV/AIDS (CORA), Health Not Handcuffs Alliance – SC, HIV Modernization Movement-Indiana, Louisiana Coalition on Criminalization and Health, Maryland Network Against Domestic Violence, Positive Iowans Taking Charge, TENT, Vivent Health, Vivent Health, We the Positive Network/My Brother’s Keeper, Equality California, Silver State Equality, AIDS Foundation Chicago, Arianna’s Place, Five Horizons Health Services, ACT UP Cleveland, CareSouth Carolina (Care Innovations), Posada Strategy Consulting

Text of the resolution can be found here.

Senegal: Media frenzy meets CNLS reality check in alleged homosexuals prosecution

The CNLS warns of an offence that is difficult to substantiate

In the case known as the ‘alleged homosexuals’ case, the classification of deliberate transmission of HIV/AIDS is the subject of heated debate. However, according to a note from the National Council for the Fight against AIDS (CNLS), this offence remains one of the most complex to prove in law.

The offence of ‘deliberate transmission of HIV/AIDS’ introduces a demanding scientific dimension to the case of the ‘alleged homosexuals’. They are being prosecuted for ‘unnatural acts, criminal association, money laundering and drug trafficking’. According to the National Council for the Fight against AIDS (CNLS), the justice system must rely on precise, consistent and solidly established evidence. In a note, the entity headed by Dr Safiatou Thiam states that ‘proof of voluntary transmission of HIV is difficult’. The CNLS notes that it ‘is a particularly complex process, involving legal, scientific and medico-legal aspects’.

The 2010 Senegalese law on HIV provides for penalties against any person who, knowing that they are HIV-positive, deliberately exposes others to the risk of infection.

However, ‘the establishment of this offence is based on the cumulative evidence of several factors,’ the note specifies. The first essential element is knowledge of one’s HIV status. “It must be proven that the accused knew they were HIV-positive at the time of the offence.

Without this prior knowledge, intent or gross negligence cannot be established,” emphasises the CNLS. The second requirement is proof of risky behaviour. Thus, the analysis is not limited to the statements of the parties. ‘The risk assessment also takes into account the therapeutic situation (ARV treatment, undetectable viral load or not),’ states the text. This clarification is important because a person undergoing effective treatment, with an undetectable viral load, ‘does not transmit HIV through sexual contact (U=U: undetectable = untransmittable)’.

From a scientific point of view, proving the causal link is just as delicate. “It is not enough for two people to be living with HIV. It must be demonstrated that the transmission did indeed come from the person being prosecuted,” adds the CNLS. Moreover, the body maintains that phylogenicetic analyses have their limitations: ‘However, even in cases of high genetic proximity, this analysis alone does not prove direct transmission or the exact chronology of events.’ Finally, the element of intent remains central. ‘To qualify as deliberate transmission in the criminal sense, it must be proven that there was either a deliberate intention to transmit the virus or an awareness of the risk associated with accepting it,’ explains the CNLS.

Dans l’affaire dite des « présumés homosexuels », la qualification de transmission volontaire du Vih/Sida suscite de vifs débats. Pourtant, selon une note du Conseil national de lutte contre le Sida (Cnls), cette infraction demeure l’une des plus complexes à prouver en droit.

L’infraction « transmission volontaire du Vih/Sida » introduit une dimension scientifique exigeante dans l’affaire des « présumés homosexuels ». Ils sont poursuivis pour « actes contre nature, association de malfaiteurs, blanchiment de capitaux et trafic de drogue ». Selon le Conseil national de lutte contre le Sida (Cnls), la justice devra s’appuyer sur des preuves précises, concordantes et solidement établies. Dans une note, l’entité dirigée par le Dr Safiatou Thiam renseigne que la « preuve de la transmission volontaire du Vih est difficile ». Le Cnls relève, en effet, qu’elle « constitue une démarche particulièrement complexe, à la fois juridique, scientifique et médico-légale ». La loi sénégalaise de 2010 relative au

Vih prévoit des sanctions contre toute personne qui, en connaissance de sa séropositivité, expose délibérément autrui à un risque de contamination. Mais, « l’établissement de cette infraction repose sur la réunion cumulative de plusieurs éléments probants », précise la note. Le premier élément indispensable est la connaissance du statut sérologique. « Il doit être démontré que la personne mise en cause savait qu’elle était séropositive au moment des faits. Sans cette connaissance préalable, l’intention ou la faute caractérisée ne peut être retenue », souligne le Cnls. Deuxième exigence : la preuve d’un comportement à risque. Ainsi, l’analyse ne se limite pas aux déclarations des parties. « L’évaluation du risque tient aussi compte de la situation thérapeutique (prise d’Arv, charge virale indétectable ou non) », énonce le texte. Cette précision est majeure, car une personne sous traitement efficace, avec une charge virale indétectable, « ne transmet pas le Vih par voie sexuelle (i = i : indétectable = intransmissible) ».

Sur le plan scientifique, la démonstration du lien de causalité est tout aussi délicate. « Il ne suffit pas que deux personnes vivent avec le Vih. Il faut démontrer que la transmission provient bien de la personne poursuivie », ajoute le Cnls. D’ailleurs, soutient l’organe, les analyses phylogénétiques ont leurs limites : « Toutefois, même en cas de forte proximité génétique, cette analyse ne prouve pas à elle seule la transmission directe ni la chronologie exacte des faits ». Enfin, l’élément intentionnel reste central. « Pour qualifier la transmission volontaire au sens pénal, il faut prouver soit la volonté délibérée de transmettre le virus, soit la conscience du risque associée à son acceptation », explique le Cnls.

Benin: UNAIDS welcomes Benin’s new, pioneering HIV legislation

Benin adopts positive new law on HIV prevention, care and elimination of stigma and discrimination

UNAIDS welcomes the passing into law by the President of Benin Patrice Talon of Law 2026-02 on 9 February 2026. The law focuses on HIV prevention and management of care and will accelerate progress towards ending AIDS in the Republic of Benin.

The new law is the culmination of a process first initiated in 2013 and which resumed in 2020 under the leadership of the Health Program for the Fight against AIDS (PSLS). This revision was made due to the significant limitations of the 2006 law, namely that it was based on a punitive, coercive and stigmatizing approach.

The previous law was incompatible with human rights standards, allowed for numerous violations of confidentiality, criminalized HIV-related behaviors and reinforced the marginalization of key populations. The law was out of step with good public health practices which should be based on prevention, inclusion and respect for human rights.

The 2026 law is now aligned with international human rights standards and more specifically reaffirms the right to non-stigma and non-discrimination. It enhances privacy and data protection, ensures access to HIV care and prevention and services and recognizes key populations including sex workers, men who have sex with men, people who inject drugs, transgender people, migrants and prisoners among others. It improves prisoners’ rights significantly and reduces criminal provisions against people living with HIV by recognizing the strictly voluntary nature of disclosing HIV status.

“The journey to validating Benin’s HIV Law was powered by strong country leadership, exceptional UNAIDS–UNDP collaboration, unwavering support from the UN Regional Coordinator, close technical follow-up with the Ministry of Health, catalytic funding from UNAIDS, UNDP and Expertise France, and close involvement of parliamentarians — turning evidence into political will and political will into transformative legislation’’ said Yayé Diallo, outgoing UNAIDS Country Director for Togo and Benin.

The progress is the result of coordinated advocacy and collaborative partnership actions at all levels involving the UNAIDS Executive Director Winnie Byanyima, who made it a priority of her visit to Benin in September 2024.

UNAIDS Regional Office, the global HIV Legal Network and UNDP provided technical support. The Global Fund and Expertise France provided financial support and the combination of the efforts of various stakeholders at the local level, namely the PSLS, the CNLS-TP(Conseil National de Lutte contre le VIH/Sida, la Tuberculose, le Paludisme, les Hépatites, les Infections Sexuellement Transmissibles et les Épidémie), the parliament and its institutions (IPaB – Institut Parlementaire du Bénin), the caucus of women parliamentarians and parliamentary committees), civil society organizations including networks of people living with HIV and key populations. With this new law and rigorous monitoring of its application, Benin is resolutely committed to its march towards the ending AIDS by 2030.

“UNAIDS, the UN Country Team, and partners including Expertise France applaud Benin’s political resolve and its new, pioneering HIV legislation. By centering the law on vulnerable groups and youth who account for 35% of new infections, Benin is taking a giant leap towards universal access to HIV treatment and the ultimate goal of ending AIDS as a public health threat by 2030.” said Christian Mouala, Representative and Director of the UNAIDS Multi-Country Office for Côte d’Ivoire, Togo, and Benin.

New Zealand: Undetectable yet prosecutable, study highlights the need for law reform

Momentum for change on HIV criminalisation

A study of people living with HIV has revealed that despite advances in HIV treatment, criminalisation continues to create uncertainty and distress, with 60% of people living with HIV fearing legal consequences and many avoiding relationships altogether.

The full study and its findings will be released at a public event on 27 February at 3 pm at the Ellen Melville Centre in Auckland, by Positive Women, Body Positive, Toitū te Ao and Burnett Foundation Aotearoa.

The study surveying 247 people living with HIV in New Zealand, highlights the urgent need for rules and practice to align with modern HIV science. Over half of participants reported anxiety about legal consequences, particularly around disclosing HIV or discussing sexual practices with healthcare service providers.

“This shows that people living with HIV want to see HIV transmission managed by Public Health authorities, and not the Police. We have one of the highest rates of HIV criminalisation per capita globally, with at least 14 prosecutions since 1993,” says Liz Gibbs CEO of Burnett Foundation Aotearoa.

“The Government’s decision to sign the U=U Call to Action at Big Gay Out 2026 is a great first step in bringing New Zealand into line with overseas best practices on how to manage HIV.”

U = U stands for Undetectable = Untransmittable (U=U). It means that a person living with HIV who is on effective treatment and maintains an undetectable viral load cannot transmit HIV to sexual partner(s).

“Currently people living with HIV may face prosecution under the Crimes Act for HIV non-disclosure to their sexual partners (unless they are using a condom), even if they are on treatment with an undetectable viral load and therefore pose zero risk of transmission,” says Gibbs.