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).

Senegal: New bill further criminalises LGBT people as well as advocacy and funding with major implications for civil society

Government tightens repressive measures against ‘unnatural acts’: Advocacy now punishable by imprisonment

Translated with AI – Scroll down for original article in French

Adopted by the Council of Ministers, the bill amends Article 319 of the Senegalese Penal Code: broadened definition, heavier penalties and, for the first time, criminalisation of advocacy and financing of such acts. Combined with Article 139 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, this text paves the way for systematic preventive detention for anyone who publicly expresses support for or finances activities in favour of LGBT people.

The Senegalese government wants to take a significant step forward in strengthening its legislation against homosexuality. At Wednesday’s Council of Ministers meeting, a bill amending Article 319 of Law No. 65-60 of 21 July 1965 on the Penal Code was examined and adopted. This text, which must still be submitted to the National Assembly for final promulgation, has three distinct parts: clarification of the legal definition of unnatural acts, tougher penalties, and, most innovatively, the inclusion of advocacy and funding of such acts in the sanctions.

Until now, Article 319, paragraph 3, of the Penal Code, in its version resulting from Law 66-16 of 12 February 1966, provided for imprisonment of one to five years and a fine of 100,000 to 1,500,000 CFA francs for any indecent or unnatural act committed with a person of the same sex. The text was deliberately general, with some legal experts describing it as a ‘catch-all’ provision, and only targeted the perpetrator of the act. The new reform aims to clarify the legal meaning of the concept of unnatural acts, increase the applicable penalties, and, above all, cross a new threshold: punishing not only the acts themselves, but also the speech and funding that support them.

Apology and funding in the crosshairs of the law

This is the provision that has been most commented on by the legal experts consulted. By including apology and funding in the scope of enforcement, the Senegalese legislature is explicitly targeting all forms of promotion, financial support or public justification of unnatural acts, whether in writing, in images, in speech or on social media. Human rights associations, NGOs funded by international donors, journalists and even ordinary internet users sharing activist content could theoretically fall within the scope of this provision. This extension to funding is particularly significant: it directly targets health organisations that receive foreign funding for their HIV prevention programmes among homosexual populations.

Article 139 of the CCP, automatic preventive detention in ambush

This is where the legal mechanism comes into its own. Article 139 of the Senegalese Code of Criminal Procedure provides that a committal order is mandatory when the public prosecutor makes duly reasoned requests in certain categories of cases. In other words, once an offence falls under this regime and the public prosecutor’s office decides to prosecute, the investigating judge is required to place the accused in pre-trial detention even before a judgement is handed down.

If the revised Article 319 is adopted as it stands and if the offences of promoting and financing unnatural acts fall within the scope of Article 139 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the practical result would be as follows: anyone arrested for promoting, even through a simple post on social media, or for financing activities in support of LGBT people could find themselves automatically placed in preventive detention on the simple instruction of the public prosecutor’s office. It is this link between the two texts that is of primary concern to defenders of civil liberties.

A context of renewed tensions

This reform comes at a time of heightened social tension. Since early February 2026, a case of deliberate HIV transmission in Keur Massar has led to the arrest of dozens of people, including some public figures, on charges including unnatural acts. The case, which has received widespread media coverage, has reignited the national debate on homosexuality and appears to have accelerated the government’s decision to strengthen existing legislation.

This reform echoes previous parliamentary attempts, notably the bill proposed by the And Samm Jikko Yi collective, which was rejected in 2022 due to a lack of consensus. The bill called for prison sentences ranging from five to ten years and already criminalised advocacy. The current government appears to be reviving the essence of this repressive framework, this time through a government bill, giving it greater institutional legitimacy.

Concerns about freedom of expression and press freedom

International human rights and press freedom organisations are alarmed by the potential side effects of this bill. The criminalisation of advocacy and funding, which is inherently difficult to define legally, could backfire on journalists covering these issues, researchers publishing papers, doctors raising awareness about sexual health, and even NGOs fighting HIV whose work involves addressing risky behaviour among homosexual populations and whose budgets come in part from foreign donors. Senegal was removed from the French Office for the Protection of Refugees and Stateless Persons (Ofpra) list of safe countries of origin in 2021, precisely because of the risks associated with sexual orientation.

The bill must now follow the ordinary legislative procedure before being enacted. Its final adoption is likely to spark intense debate in the National Assembly, as well as potential appeals to the Constitutional Council or international bodies. In the meantime, Article 139 of the Code of Criminal Procedure remains in the background, like a silent warning to all those who wish to speak out publicly or provide financial support for these issues.

Sénégal – Le gouvernement durcit l’arsenal répressif contre les « actes contre nature » : L’apologie désormais passible de prison

Adopté en Conseil des ministres, le projet de loi modifie l’article 319 du Code pénal sénégalais : définition élargie, peines alourdies et, fait inédit, criminalisation de l’apologie et du financement de ces actes. Croisé avec l’article 139 du Code de procédure pénale, ce texte ouvre ainsi la voie à des détentions préventives systématiques pour quiconque exprime publiquement un soutien ou finance des activités en faveur des personnes LGBT.

Le gouvernement du Sénégal veut franchir un pas significatif dans le renforcement de sa législation contre l’homosexualité. Lors du Conseil des ministres de ce mercredi, un projet de loi modifiant l’article 319 de la loi n°65-60 du 21 juillet 1965 portant Code pénal a été examiné et adopté. Ce texte, qui doit encore être soumis à l’Assemblée nationale pour promulgation définitive, comporte trois volets distincts : la précision de la définition légale des actes contre nature, le durcissement des peines encourues, et élément le plus novateur l’intégration dans les sanctions de l’apologie et du financement de ces actes.

Jusqu’à présent, l’article 319 alinéa 3 du Code pénal, dans sa version issue de la loi 66-16 du 12 février 1966, prévoyait un emprisonnement d’un à cinq ans et une amende de 100 000 à 1 500 000 francs CFA pour tout acte impudique ou contre nature commis avec une personne du même sexe. Le texte était volontairement général, certains juristes le qualifiant de « fourre-tout », et ne visait que l’auteur de l’acte. La nouvelle réforme entend clarifier ce que recouvre juridiquement la notion d’acte contre nature, alourdir les peines applicables, et surtout franchir un seuil inédit : sanctionner non plus seulement les actes, mais les discours et les financements qui les soutiendraient.

L’apologie et le financement dans le viseur de la loi

C’est la disposition la plus commentée par les juristes consultés. En intégrant l’apologie et le financement dans le champ répressif, le législateur sénégalais vise explicitement toute forme de promotion, de soutien financier ou de justification publique des actes contre nature, que ce soit par l’écrit, l’image, la parole ou les réseaux sociaux. Des associations de défense des droits, des ONG financées par des bailleurs internationaux, des journalistes et même de simples internautes partageant un contenu militant pourraient théoriquement entrer dans le champ d’application de cette disposition. Cette extension aux financements est particulièrement significative : elle cible directement les organisations de santé qui reçoivent des fonds étrangers pour leurs programmes de lutte contre le VIH au sein des populations homosexuelles.

Article 139 du CPP, la détention préventive automatique en embuscade

C’est ici que la mécanique juridique prend toute sa dimension. L’article 139 du Code de procédure pénale sénégalais prévoit que le mandat de dépôt est obligatoire lorsque le procureur de la République prend des réquisitions dûment motivées dans certaines catégories d’affaires. En d’autres termes, dès lors qu’une infraction visée entre dans ce régime et que le parquet décide de poursuivre, le juge d’instruction est tenu de placer l’inculpé en détention provisoire avant même qu’un jugement ne soit rendu.

Si l’article 319 révisé est adopté en l’état et si les délits d’apologie et de financement des actes contre nature intègrent le champ d’application de l’article 139 du CPP, le résultat pratique serait le suivant : toute personne interpellée pour avoir fait la promotion, même par un simple post sur les réseaux sociaux, ou pour avoir financé des activités en faveur des personnes LGBT pourrait se retrouver placée en détention préventive automatique sur simple instruction du parquet. C’est cette articulation entre les deux textes qui préoccupe au premier chef les défenseurs des libertés.

Un contexte de tensions ravivées

Cette réforme intervient dans un contexte de vive tension sociale. Depuis début février 2026, une affaire de transmission volontaire du VIH à Keur Massar a conduit à l’arrestation de plusieurs dizaines de personnes, dont certaines personnalités publiques, sous des chefs d’inculpation incluant les actes contre nature. L’affaire, fortement médiatisée, a relancé le débat national sur l’homosexualité et semble avoir accéléré la décision gouvernementale de renforcer la législation existante.

Cette réforme fait écho à des tentatives parlementaires antérieures, notamment la proposition de loi du collectif And Samm Jikko Yi, rejetée en 2022 faute de consensus, qui demandait des peines allant de cinq à dix ans d’emprisonnement ferme et qui criminalisent déjà l’apologie. Le gouvernement actuel semble reprendre l’essentiel de cette architecture répressive, en la portant cette fois par la voie d’un projet de loi gouvernemental, lui conférant une légitimité institutionnelle plus solide.

Des inquiétudes sur la liberté d’expression et la liberté de la presse

Des organisations internationales de défense des droits humains et de la presse s’alarment des effets de bord potentiels de ce texte. La criminalisation de l’apologie et du financement, par nature difficile à délimiter juridiquement, pourrait se retourner contre des journalistes traitant de ces sujets, des chercheurs publiant des travaux, des médecins sensibilisant à la santé sexuelle, ou encore des ONG de lutte contre le VIH dont le travail implique d’aborder les comportements à risque au sein des populations homosexuelles et dont les budgets proviennent en partie de bailleurs étrangers. Le Sénégal avait d’ailleurs été retiré en 2021 de la liste des pays d’origine sûrs par l’Ofpra français, précisément en raison des risques liés à l’orientation sexuelle.

Le projet de loi doit à présent suivre la procédure législative ordinaire avant d’être promulgué. Son adoption définitive soulèvera vraisemblablement des débats intenses à l’Assemblée nationale, ainsi que de potentiels recours devant le Conseil constitutionnel ou des instances internationales. En attendant, l’article 139 du Code de procédure pénale reste en toile de fond, comme un avertissement silencieux adressé à tous ceux qui souhaiteraient s’exprimer publiquement ou apporter leur soutien financier à ces questions.

New Zealand: Government backs U=U, opening door to reform of HIV non-disclosure laws

Burnett Foundation Aotearoa welcomes the Government’s decision on U=U

Associate Health Minister Doocey’s decision to sign the U=U declaration today is a critical step on the road towards zero locally acquired HIV transmissions in Aotearoa New Zealand.

“The U=U message helps increase testing, treatment adherence, and viral suppression rates, but most importantly, it increases the confidence and dignity of people living with HIV. It’s proof that science and compassion walk hand in hand,” says Liz Gibbs, CEO of Burnett Foundation Aotearoa.

This decision makes New Zealand the 5th country to sign the multinational U=U Call to Action, behind Australia, Canada, the USA, and Vietnam.

“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. With the Government’s official endorsement of U=U, it gives the Police, Courts and government departments the backing required to modernise outdated guidelines and policies, so they are in-keeping with the latest science.” says Gibbs.

This is a significant step forward that many across the HIV and sexual health community have been advocating for several years, and we are thrilled to see it finally come to pass.

Senegal: Following recent arrests, the National AIDS council calls for an approach based on science and human rights

The CNLS warns against judicial and social excesses

The executive secretariat of the National Council for the fight against AIDS (CnLS) published yesterday a technical note warning of the health, legal and social consequences of recent arrests for “unnatural acts” and transmission of HIV.

The executive secretariat of the National Council for the Fight against AIDS (CNLS) published yesterday a technical note warning of the health, legal and social consequences of recent arrests for “unnatural acts” and transmission of HIV. The institution fears a decline in screening, a break in treatments and a rise in stigma, calling on the authorities to favour an approach based on science, public health and respect for human rights.

“Health, legal and social impact of the arrest of people for unnatural acts and voluntary transmission of HIV”. This is the title of the technical note published yesterday by the National Council for the Fight against AIDS (CNLS), which proposes an in-depth analysis of the potentially disastrous consequences of mismanagement of news related to HIV transmission.

According to the CNLS, the country has a concentrated HIV epidemic, characterized by a low prevalence in the general population (0.3%) and a high prevalence within some key groups: 27% in men having sex with men, 6.4% in women sex workers, 5.2% in drug users and 2% in detainees. Faced with this situation, they maintain that the national response is based on equitable access to screening, prevention means and universal antiretroviral treatment.

According to them, these approaches have reduced new infections, improved the quality of life of people living with HIV and limited transmission in the general population. However, the CNLS believes that the high media coverage of the arrests of twelve (12) people has aroused a strong reaction from public opinion and rekindled tensions around sexuality, HIV and human rights, raising major health, legal and social issues.

Blow for early screening and continuity of care

First, in terms of health, the CNLS fears that legal proceedings or the disclosure of serological status will dissuade some people, especially from the most vulnerable groups, from voluntarily using screening. “This reluctance limits the early detection of people living with HIV and their rapid access to treatment, which is essential to interrupt transmission. Nearly 90% of people with HIV are tested to date and under treatment and 92% of them no longer transmit the disease,” reads the technical note published by the CNLS.

Worse, it says, the continuity of care is also threatened. Indeed, it is noted, for fear of stigma or public exposure, some people living with HIV can discontinue their antiretroviral treatment. “These ruptures increase the risk of medical complications, resistance to treatments and transmission of the virus, with a direct impact on national health indicators,” says the CNLS. It is also established that when the possession of condoms, the use of screening or adherence to treatment are perceived as burdens in legal proceedings, it constitutes a major risk to public health.

The CNLS thus draws attention to the fact that this situation discourages prevention behaviour and promotes silent circulation of the virus, increasing the number of people unaware of their serological status and the risks of transmission among the general population.

“Unauthorised disclosure of serological status is penalised by the HIV law of 2010…”

With regard to the legal issues of arrests for unnatural acts and transmission of HIV, the CNLS recalls at first glance that the voluntary transmission of HIV is a crime under the law. However, he says, its legal qualification, as provided for by the 2010 HIV Act, presupposes the meeting of several constituent elements: proven harm, a direct causal link and a deliberate intention to harm. In practice, he says, the establishment of these elements remains complex. The demonstration of intentionality is particularly difficult and cannot be based on serological status alone. It requires proof that the person knew his status, that he voluntarily exposed others to risk without prior information and that he had the obvious will to transmit the virus,” informs the CNLS, which adds that proof of the causal link and the anteriority of the infection requires specialized medical and biological expertise, rarely available in the context of ordinary judicial proceedings, thus exposing to a risk of judicial errors.

The CNLS also reports that scientific data establish that a person living with HIV on effective antiretroviral treatment, with an undetectable viral load, does not transmit the virus. And that ignorance of these evidences can lead to misinterpretations of the facts. As a result, he argues that excessive or imprecise criminalisation of HIV transmission can produce counterproductive effects by discouraging voluntary screening, as ignorance of status is sometimes perceived as legal protection. The CNLS argues that respect for the presumption of innocence, privacy and confidentiality of medical data remains a fundamental requirement. “The unauthorised disclosure of serological status is penalised by the 2010 HIV law and can engage the responsibility of the State, with regard to Senegal’s international commitments,” he said.

Plea for a circular for judicial actors integrating current scientific data on HIV
Still in the technical note of the CNLS, it is established that on the social level, the arrests and communication that accompany them may increase the stigma and discrimination against people living with HIV. “The amalgam between sexual orientations and serological status reinforces prejudices and further marginalizes already vulnerable groups,” the document points out.

Moreover, the CNLS fears that the people concerned will be subject to social and family exclusion, and will be victims of attacks on their dignity as well as verbal, psychological or even physical violence, weakening social cohesion. Another concern for the CNLS is that community organisations and civil society actors, essential to prevention and awareness, can reduce their activities for fear of stigmatisation or reprisals, leading to a decrease in social mobilisation and a weakening of prevention mechanisms. Faced with this situation, the CNLS believes that a balanced approach, based on public health, respect for human rights and the rule of law, is essential. They also ask the Prime Minister to instruct the Keeper of the Seals to disseminate a circular to judicial actors integrating current scientific data on HIV.

——————————————–

Le CNLS met en garde contre des dérives judiciaires et sociales

Le secrétariat exécutif du Conseil national de lutte contre le sida (CnLS) a publié hier une note technique alertant sur les conséquences sanitaires, juridiques et sociales des récentes arrestations pour “actes contre nature” et transmission du VIH.

Le secrétariat exécutif du Conseil national de lutte contre le sida (CNLS) a publié hier une note technique alertant sur les conséquences sanitaires, juridiques et sociales des récentes arrestations pour “actes contre nature” et transmission du VIH. L’institution redoute un recul du dépistage, une rupture des traitements et une montée de la stigmatisation, appelant les autorités à privilégier une approche fondée sur la science, la santé publique et le respect des droits humains.

«Impact sanitaire, juridique et social de l’arrestation de personnes pour actes contre nature et transmission volontaire du VIH». Tel est l’intitulé de la note technique publiée hier par le Conseil national de lutte contre le sida (CNLS), qui propose une analyse approfondie des conséquences potentiellement désastreuses d’une mauvaise gestion de l’actualité liée à la transmission du VIH.

Selon le CNLS, le pays présente une épidémie de VIH de type concentrée, caractérisée par une faible prévalence dans la population générale (0,3 %) et une prévalence élevée au sein de certains groupes clés : 27% chez les hommes ayant des relations sexuelles avec des hommes, 6,4% chez les femmes travailleuses du sexe, 5,2% chez les consommateurs de drogues et 2%chez les personnes détenues. Face à cette situation, il soutient que la riposte nationale repose sur l’accès équitable au dépistage, aux moyens de prévention et au traitement antirétroviral universel.

A l’en croire, ces approches ont permis de réduire les nouvelles infections, d’améliorer la qualité de vie des personnes vivant avec le VIH et de limiter la transmission dans la population générale. Cependant, le CNLS estime que la forte médiatisation des arrestations de douze (12) personnes a suscité une vive réaction de l’opinion publique et ravivé les tensions autour de la sexualité, du VIH et des droits humains, soulevant des enjeux sanitaires, juridiques et sociaux majeurs.

Coup porté au dépistage précoce et à la continuité des soins

D’abord, sur le plan sanitaire, le CNLS craint que les poursuites judiciaires ou la divulgation du statut sérologique dissuade certaines personnes, notamment issues des groupes les plus vulnérables, de recourir volontairement au dépistage. “Cette réticence limite le dépistage précoce des personnes vivant avec le VIH et leur accès rapide au traitement, pourtant essentiel pour interrompre la transmission. Près de 90% des personnes atteintes de VIH sont dépistées à ce jour et sous traitement et 92% d’entre elles ne transmettent plus la maladie”, lit-on dans la note technique publiée par le CNLS.

Pis, dit-il, la continuité des soins est également menacée. En effet, note-t-on, par peur de stigmatisation ou d’exposition publique, certaines personnes vivant avec le VIH peuvent interrompre leur traitement antirétroviral. “Ces ruptures augmententles risques de complications médicales, de résistance aux traitements et de transmission du virus, avec un impact direct sur les indicateurs nationaux de santé”, confie le CNLS. Il est également établi que lorsque la possession de préservatifs, le recours au dépistage ou l’adhésion au traitement sont perçus comme des éléments à charge dans des procédures judiciaires, cela constitue un risque majeur pour la santé publique.

Le CNLS attire ainsi l’attention sur le fait que cette situation décourage les comportements de prévention et favorise une circulation silencieuse du virus, augmentant le nombre de personnes ignorant leur statut sérologique et les risques de transmission au sein de la population générale.

«La divulgation non autorisée du statut sérologique est pénalisée par la loi VIH de 2010…»

En ce qui concerne les enjeux juridiques des arrestations pour actes contre nature et transmission du VIH, le CNLS rappelle de prime abord que la transmission volontaire du VIH constitue un délit au regard de la loi. Toutefois, fait-il savoir, sa qualification juridique, telle que prévue par la loi VIH de 2010, suppose la réunion de plusieurs éléments constitutifs : un préjudice avéré, un lien de causalité direct et une intention délibérée de nuire. Dans la pratique, précise-t-il, l’établissement de ces éléments demeure complexe.“La démonstration de l’intentionnalité est particulièrement difficile et ne saurait reposer sur le seul statut sérologique. Elle nécessite la preuve que la personne connaissait son statut, qu’elle a volontairement exposé autrui au risque sans information préalable et qu’elle avaitla volonté manifeste de transmettre le virus”, renseigne le CNLS qui ajoute que la preuve du lien de causalité et de l’antériorité de l’infection requiert des expertises médicales et biologiques spécialisées, rarement disponibles dans le cadre des procédures judiciaires ordinaires, exposant ainsi à un risque d’erreurs judiciaires.

Le CNLS informe également que les données scientifiques établissent qu’une personne vivant avec le VIH sous traitement antirétroviral efficace, avec une charge virale indétectable, ne transmet pas le virus. Et que la méconnaissance de ces évidences peut conduire à des interprétations erronées des faits. De ce fait, il soutient qu’une criminalisation excessive ou imprécise de la transmission du VIH peut produire des effets contreproductifs en décourageant le dépistage volontaire, l’ignorance du statut étant parfois perçue comme une protection juridique. Le CNLS soutient dans la foulée que le respect de la présomption d’innocence, de la vie privée et de la confidentialité des données médicales demeure une exigence fondamentale. “La divulgation non autorisée du statut sérologique est pénalisée par la loi VIH de 2010 et peut engager la responsabilité de l’État, au regard des engagements internationaux du Sénégal”, a-t-il fait entendre.

Plaidoyer pour une circulaire à l’attention des acteurs judiciaires intégrant les données scientifiques actuelles sur le VIH

Toujours dans la note technique du CNLS, il est établi que sur le plan social, les arrestations et la communication qui les accompagnent, risquent d’accentuer la stigmatisation et la discrimination à l’encontre des personnes vivant avec le VIH. “L’amalgame entre orientations sexuelles et statut sérologique renforce les préjugés et marginalise davantage des groupes déjà vulnérables”, souligne le document.

D’ailleurs, le CNLS craint que les personnes concernées fassent l’objet d’exclusions sociales et familiales, et soient victimes d’atteintes à leur dignité ainsi qu’à des violences verbales, psychologiques, voire physiques, fragilisant la cohésion sociale. Autre préoccupation pour le CNLS, les organisations communautaires et les acteurs de la société civile, essentiels à la prévention et à la sensibilisation, peuvent réduire leurs activités par crainte de stigmatisation ou de représailles, entraînant une baisse de la mobilisation sociale et un affaiblissement des mécanismes de prévention. Face à cette situation, le CNLS pense qu’une approche équilibrée, fondée sur la santé publique, le respect des droits humains et l’État de droit, est indispensable. Il sollicite d’ailleurs le Premier Ministre afin qu’il instruise le Garde des Sceaux de diffuser une circulaire à l’attention des acteurs judiciaires intégrant les données scientifiques actuelles sur le VIH.