US: HIV law reform tops advocates agenda for 2025 legislative session in Maryland

HIV decriminalization bill is FreeState Justice’s top 2025 legislative priority

A bill that would decriminalize HIV in Maryland is a top legislative priority for FreeState Justice in 2025.

FreeState Justice Community Advocacy Manager Ronnie Taylor told the Washington Blade on Wednesday the Carlton R. Smith Jr. HIV Modernization Act seeks to repeal “outdated and stigmatizing laws that criminalize the transfer of HIV, bringing Maryland’s public health laws in line with modern science and best practices.”

The bill is named after Carlton Smith, a long-time LGBTQ activist known as the “mayor” of Baltimore’s Mount Vernon neighborhood who died last May. A similar measure died in the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee in 2024.

“The bill emphasizes public health education, anti-discrimination measures, and access to care, ensuring those living with HIV are supported rather than penalized,” said Taylor.

Taylor pointed out FreeState Justice is working with the Maryland Legislative LGBTQIA+ Caucus and the Maryland Commission on LGBTQIA+ Affairs to build support for four additional bills and policy objectives.

• The Birth Certificate Modernization Act would “streamline the process for amending gender markers on birth certificates to make it more accessible and affirming.”

• The Commission on History, Culture and Civics would create “an inclusive commission to center marginalized voices in Maryland’s history, culture, and civics education.”

• The implementation of “inclusive and diverse English Language Arts Standards” in public schools that would ensure “curricula reflect diverse identities and lived experiences, fostering a more inclusive learning environment for students.”

• The creation of a “comprehensive health education framework” that would establish “a robust and inclusive health education framework for primary and secondary schools, focusing on equity and affirming all students.”

Taylor noted FreeState Justice is also “exploring ways to support” Compassion and Choices, a group that advocates for assisted dying, in their efforts in support of the Honorable Elijah E. Cummings End of Life Option Act.

“The act has profound historical significance for LGBTQIA+ communities, as end-of-life options were first championed during the HIV/AIDS epidemic of the 1990s, highlighting the importance of dignity and choice,” said Taylor.

She added the “legislative efforts reflect FreeState Justice’s commitment to advancing equity and dignity for LGBTQIA+ Marylanders through policy advocacy and community collaboration.”

Mexico: Advocacy organisation calls for the repeal of HIV criminalisation law in Tabasco

Tudyssex seeks to eliminate laws that criminalize people with HIV

Translated from Spanish with Google Translate; scroll down for original article.

The president of Tabasqueños Unidos por la Diversidad y la Salud Sexual (Tudyssex), José Cruz Guzmán Matías, said that they are preparing a proposal to eliminate the legal provisions that criminalize people living with HIV, for having sexual relations without a condom, describing them as discriminatory and obsolete.

Cruz Guzmán pointed out that the state’s Criminal Code contemplates penalties of up to six years in prison and fines for those who, living with communicable infections, are denounced for having unprotected sex.

The activist recalled that, a person with HIV who has adequate control with antiretroviral drugs, achieves that the virus is not only undetectable, but non-transmissible, so that he can lead a normal life, without risk of infecting others.

“The Penal Code includes an article dating back to 1940, when syphilis was the most feared disease. Today we know that HIV, with the appropriate treatment, does not represent a risk of transmission in these conditions. That’s why we ask for its elimination,” he explained.

In addition to the penalty, he also denounced civil rights limitations faced by people with HIV, such as the requirement to undergo medical tests before civil marriage.

According to the leader of Tudyssex, this measure can be used to deny marriage to HIV-positive people, despite the fact that both parties are informed and agree.

Busca Tudyssex que se eliminen leyes que criminalizan a personas con VIH

El presidente de Tabasqueños Unidos por la Diversidad y la Salud Sexual (Tudyssex), José Cruz Guzmán Matías, señaló que preparan una propuesta para eliminar las disposiciones legales que criminalizan a las personas que viven con VIH, por mantener relaciones sexuales sin condón, calificándolas de discriminatorias y obsoletas.

Cruz Guzmán señaló que el Código Penal del estado contempla penas de hasta seis años de prisión y multas para quienes, viviendo con infecciones transmisibles, sean denunciados por tener relaciones sexuales sin protección.

El activista recordó que, una persona con VIH que lleva un control adecuado con medicamentos antirretrovirales, logra que el virus sea no solo indetectable, sino intransmisible, por lo que puede llevar una vida normal, sin riesgo de contagiar a otros.

“El Código Penal incluye un artículo que data de 1940, cuando la sífilis era la enfermedad más temida. Hoy sabemos que el VIH, con el tratamiento adecuado, no representa un riesgo de transmisión en estas condiciones. Por eso pedimos su eliminación”, explicó.

Además de la penalización, también denunció las limitaciones en derechos civiles que enfrentan las personas con VIH, como el requisito de realizarse pruebas médicas antes del matrimonio civil.

Introducing Positive Destinations:
Information and Advocacy on Travelling
and Relocating with HIV

Today, on International Migrants Day, the HIV Justice Network is thrilled to announce the relaunch of The Global Database on HIV-specific Travel and Residence Restrictions (HIVtravel.org) under a new name: Positive Destinations (www.positivedestinations.info). This rebranding reflects a bold vision for the future — empowering people living with HIV through accessible information, advocacy, and resources to promote freedom of movement and challenge stigma worldwide.

Positive Destinations represents hope, progress, and the belief that every journey should be free of archaic barriers and unjust discrimination. This enhanced platform provides up-to-date, accurate information on restrictions affecting people living with HIV who want to travel, relocate or migrate, and serves as a vital advocacy portal to push for the removal of discriminatory laws, policies and practices.

“This rebrand to Positive Destinations reflects our commitment to a world where people living with HIV, in all our diversities, can enjoy our human rights and live in dignity, without fear of unjust criminalisation, regulation or control,” said HIV Justice Network’s Executive Director, Edwin J Bernard. “With this platform, we aim to amplify the voices of those most affected and build a movement that challenges and changes unjust, unscientific policies. Travel or relocation for love, work, family or pleasure should be available to everyone, regardless of HIV status, and we are dedicated to ensuring that every destination is a truly positive destination for all.”

Why the change?

HIVtravel.org has been a trusted resource for more than two decades. The name Positive Destinations better reflects its mission to provide expanded information and tools to promote freedom of movement and uphold human rights, paving the way for a world where people living with HIV can explore, connect, and thrive without prejudice.

Expanding our vision: Positive Destinations goes beyond providing entry, stay and residence restrictions information to also covering information on access to HIV services for non-nationals.
Accessible advocacy tools: The platform equips users with news and resources to challenge unjust restrictions.
Community-focused: It highlights stories of successful advocacy and personal testimonies of lived experience to foster understanding and solidarity.

What’s new on Positive Destinations?

Redesigned website: A completely redesigned user-friendly interface – optimised for mobile phones – that makes accessing critical travel and treatment access information seamless.
Latest news: News stories about advocacy or information relating to HIV-related travel or migration curated from reliable sources around the world.
Advocacy resources: Practical tools for individuals and organisations to advocate for change.
Links to local organisations: Where available we link to organisations in-country that can help migrants with HIV to access services.
Global perspectives: Personal stories highlighting the challenges and triumphs of navigating the world as people living with HIV in all our diversities.

Visit the new platform at www.positivedestinations.info.

About the HIV Justice Network

The HIV Justice Network (HJN) is the leading community-based NGO building a co-ordinated, effective global response to punitive laws and policies that impact people living with HIV in all our diversities. In 2024, HJN took over the running of the hivtravel.org website, rebranding it as Positive Destinations.

Acknowledgments

This project has been made possible with the provision of a financial grant from Gilead Sciences Europe Ltd.

We acknowledge previous funders and contributors to The Global Database on HIV-specific Travel and Residence Restrictions (hivtravel.org) including Deutsche Aidshilfe, European AIDS Treatment Group (EATG), the International AIDS Society (IAS), Positive Council (Switzerland). We would especially like to thank the original authors David Haerry and Peter Wiessner.

Mexico: Bill proposes new HIV/STI prevention law in Chihuahua and Criminal Code reform

Proposed Law on Prevention and Care of HIV/AIDS and Sexually Transmitted Infections

Translated with Deepl.com; Scroll down for original article in Spanish.

Congresswoman Argüelles presented a legislative proposal to Congress.

Given the need to raise awareness and treat these diseases in a comprehensive way in the entity, the deputy for Morena, Jael Argüelles Díaz, presented to the State Congress the proposal for the issuance of the Law on Prevention and Care of HIV / AIDS and Sexually Transmitted Infections for the State of Chihuahua.

This law is projected to contemplate at least five chapters through which the objectives are established, the instances that will be involved and the formation of the State Council in order to follow it up.

The purposes included by the deputy in the drafting of this law include the establishment of the principles and criteria that guide public policies in the field of prevention and comprehensive care of HIV/AIDS and other STIs in the state.

It also seeks to establish the necessary conditions for the implementation of strategies on prevention and care for people affected by sexually transmitted infections.

In the same way, he proposed that the Criminal Code of the State eliminate the crime of “danger of contagion” that is established in relation to people who suffer from any of these diseases mentioned.

“Putting an end to AIDS means reaching all those affected by HIV, especially vulnerable populations,” emphasized the legislator in her explanatory statement, who regretted that to date millions of people continue to be left behind, especially those belonging to vulnerable groups.

He recalled in turn that infection with the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) is a viral disorder that progressively destroys certain white blood cells and is treated with antiretroviral drugs. If not treated, it can cause acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) that is no more than terminal stage HIV.

“Prejudices, stigmas and ignorance continue to play a very important role in our society and this has caused that, today, at the time of diagnosis, between 35 and 40 percent of people living with HIV are already in the AIDS stage,” he said, raising aware of the urgency of implementing prevention actions.

Proponen Ley de Prevención y Atención al VIH/SIDA e Infecciones de Transmisión Sexual

La diputada Argüelles presentó una propuesta legislativa ante el Congreso

Ante la necesidad de concientizar y atender estas enfermedades de una manera integral en la entidad, la diputada por Morena, Jael Argüelles Díaz, presentó ante el Congreso del Estado la propuesta para la expedición de la Ley de Prevención y Atención del VIH/SIDA e Infecciones de Transmisión Sexualpara el Estado de Chihuahua.

Esta ley se proyecta que contemple al menos cinco capítulos a través de los cuales se establecen los objetivos, las instancias que estarán involucradas y la conformación del Consejo Estatal a fin de darle seguimiento.

Dentro de los propósitos que incluye la diputada en la redacción de esta ley se incluyen el establecer los principios y criterios que orienten las políticas públicas en materia de prevención y atención integral del VIH/SIDA y otras ITS en el estado.

También se busca establecer las condiciones necesarias para la implementación de estrategias en materia de prevención y atención a las personas afectadas por las infecciones de transmisión sexual.

De la misma manera, propuso que se elimine el Código Penal del Estado el delito de “peligro de contagio” que se establece con relación a las personas que padecen alguna de estas enfermedades mencionadas.

“Poner fin al SIDA significa llegar a todos los afectados por el VIH, especialmente poblaciones en situación de vulnerabilidad”, enfatizó en su exposición de motivos la legisladora quien lamentó que a la fecha se siga dejando a millones de personas atrás, especialmente a las que pertenecen a grupos vulnerables.

Recordó a su vez que la infección por el virus de la inmunodeficiencia humana (VIH) es un trastorno vírico que, progresivamente, destruye ciertos glóbulos blancos y se trata con medicamentos, antirretrovirales. De no tratarse, puede causar síndrome de inmunodeficiencia adquirida (SIDA) que no es más que el VIH en fase terminal.

“Los prejuicios, los estigmas y la ignorancia siguen jugando un papel muy importante en nuestra sociedad y ello ha provocado que, hoy por hoy, al momento del diagnóstico, entre 35 y 40 por ciento de las personas viviendo con VIH ya están en la etapa de SIDA”, externó al concientizar sobre la urgencia de implementar acciones de prevención.

Poland: Health Ministry advocates revising HIV exposure laws to align with modern science

The Ministry of Health wants to remove HIV from the law. It’s about exposure to infectious diseases

Translated with Google translate. For original article in Polish please scroll down

The Ministry of Health wants to change the regulation on exposure to HIV infection. Instead, there would be a general term for infectious diseases. The Ministry of Health turned to the Ministry of Justice in this matter.

The Ministry of Justice is analyzing the proposal, but is currently not working on such a change in the Criminal Code – according to the Polish Press Agency.

Currently art. 161 of the Criminal Code reads: “Anyone who, knowing that he is infected with HIV or is affected by a venereal or infectious disease, a serious incurable disease or a real life-threatening disease, directly exposes another person to infection with this virus or such a disease, is subject to imprisonment from 3 months to 5 years”.

Anna Marzec-Bogusławska, head of the National Center for AIDS, believes that the article should be modified.

– There is no reason for HIV infections to be the only ones isolated in this article – it is stigmatizing and harmful. It is enough for them to be subject to general regulation, which speaks of conscious exposure to infection with an infectious disease. The fight against the stigmatization of infected people is a priority for many programs to support people with HIV, also in the international forum – she said at the beginning of December. As she explained, these recommendations were sent to the Ministry of Justice.

It is also about reducing the penalty

The Ministry of Health’s proposal in this matter was sent to the Criminal Law Codification Commission under the Minister of Justice in February this year. It contains a proposal to mitigate the sentence and adapt it to current medical knowledge in the field of HIV/AIDS and legal knowledge.

The Ministry of Health proposed a new content of art. 161: “Whoever, knowing that he is affected by a venereal or infectious disease, a serious incurable disease or a real life-threatening disease, directly exposes another person to infection with this virus or such a disease, is subject to imprisonment from 3 months to 3 years”

This means that in addition to deleting the name of the HIV virus from the provision, the ministry also wants the maximum penalty to be reduced to its original version, i.e. the departure from five in favor of three years. So much was predicted in the 1990s. In the 1960s, when the regulation came into force.

The Ministry of Health explained that initially, with a much lower state of medical knowledge, the maximum penalty was still lower than the current one. “At the same time, medical knowledge, the availability of infection prevention measures, the general public’s knowledge of HIV/AIDS and ways to prevent infection, and the availability, quality and effectiveness of antiretroviral treatment at the end of the 20th century are now incomparable” – it said in a letter to the Ministry of Justice.

“Medical knowledge has changed”

The Ministry proposed to reduce the sentence to five years in the third paragraph of the same article, which currently provides for – in the case of exposure to infection of many people – imprisonment from one to 10 years.

In the justification addressed to the Criminal Law Codification Commission at the Minister of Justice, the Ministry of Health described the changes that have occurred over the years in the treatment possibilities of people infected with the HIV virus.

“There is no doubt that the intentional and effective transmission of HIV to a person in order to destroy his health is a criminal activity. However, cases of intentional and conscious transmission of the virus are extremely rare, as are cases of negligence on the part of health care workers” – it was emphasized.

The document indicates police statistics: the number of crimes found exposure to HIV, infectious or venereal disease (Article 161 para. 1-2) in the years 1999-2020 never exceeded 20 per year, and on average it amounted to 13.

Western Europe model

“Such acts may be prosecuted on the basis of other, general provisions of law, which makes it unnecessary to maintain existing or create additional regulations concerning HIV only,” the Ministry of Law noted in the letter. It was added that modern treatment options for people with HIV give a 96 percent reduction in the risk of infection transmission, and thus treatment allows you to break the epidemiological chain of new infections, improving the safety of the entire population.

According to the HIV Justice Network, an NGO, HIV criminal laws now mention HIV in 75 countries, in three parts of the world: the United States, Eastern Europe/Central Asia and sub-Saharan Africa.

“In the European Union, only a few Member States have introduced legislation specifically on HIV exposure or transmission. Denmark, which was the only country in Western Europe to introduce criminal records in 2001, suspended them 10 years later. Romania and Latvia have also adopted criminal laws on HIV, but the criminalisation rates are at a very low level,” the Ministry of Health said.

Ministry of Justice: we are considering, we are not working on changes

The Codification Commission of Criminal Law under the Minister of Justice issued an opinion on the application of the Ministry of Health. It contains a number of doubts about the proposal, including the lack of consistency. At the same time, however, it was stated that the postulate that the provision should no longer contain the term “HIV virus” – but provided that the current scope of criminalization was maintained – is “undoubtedly worthy of consideration”.

When asked about a possible change in the regulation, the Ministry of Justice replied that “the office does not carry out such work”.

“Nevertheless, on the basis of the demands of the National Center for AIDS, there is an exchange of correspondence and opinions between the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Health, which concerns possible changes to Article 161 paragraph 1 and 3 of the Criminal Code. Only after the completion of these findings will it be possible to determine whether in the described by the National Center for AIDS in the field, the provision will be changed” – added the Press Department of the MS.

HIV and AIDS in Poland and in the world

The first case of HIV infection in Poland was detected in 1985. From that time until the end of 2023, less than 33,000 infections were reported, more than 4 thousand people fell ill with AIDS, 1496 patients died. In 2023, almost 40 million people lived with HIV in the world. 1.3 million new people were banned from the virus, and 630,000 died from AIDS-related diseases.

In 2023, a record number of HIV infections were detected in Poland – 2879. This is more than twice as much as the annual data of a decade ago. According to the National Institute of Public Health, 322 people were banned in Poland in 2023 as a result of homosexual contacts, and 214 people – as a result of heterosexual contacts. In addition, 36 reported infection by taking drugs by injection, and 25 – through vertical infections, i.e. mother-child. Most people who were diagnosed with HIV infection were in the “no data on the source of infection” group.

Currently, thanks to the advancement of medicine, if a person living with HIV regularly takes antiretroviral drugs and has undetectable viremia (a condition defined as the presence of viruses that can multiply in the blood) for half a year, it is non-infectious to sexual partners according to the principle of “n=n”, or “undetectable=non-infectable”.

HIV is the human immunodeficiency virus. The infection can be asymptomatic for many years, which makes diagnosis very difficult. For up to 8-10 years, it may not give any symptoms, but during this time the virus constantly multiplies and destroys the immunity of an infected person. It can cause acquired immunodeficiency syndrome – AIDS.

Ministerstwo Zdrowia chce wykreślić HIV z ustawy. Chodzi o narażenie na choroby zakaźne

Ministerstwo Zdrowia chce zmiany przepisu o narażeniu na zakażenie HIV. Zamiast tego miałoby się pojawić ogólne określenie dotyczące chorób zakaźnych. Resort zdrowia zwrócił się w tej sprawie do Ministerstwa Sprawiedliwości.

Ministerstwo Sprawiedliwości analizuje propozycję, jednak obecnie nie pracuje nad taką zmianą w Kodeksie karnym – podaje Polska Agencja Prasowa.

Obecnie art. 161 Kodeksu karnego brzmi: “Kto, wiedząc, że jest zarażony wirusem HIV lub dotknięty chorobą weneryczną lub zakaźną, ciężką chorobą nieuleczalną lub realnie zagrażającą życiu, naraża bezpośrednio inną osobę na zarażenie tym wirusem lub taką chorobą, podlega karze pozbawienia wolności od 3 miesięcy do lat 5″.

Anna Marzec-Bogusławska, szefowa Krajowego Centrum ds. AIDS, uważa, że przepis powinien zostać zmodyfikowany.

– Nie ma podstaw, żeby zakażenia HIV, jako jedyne, były wyodrębnione w tym artykule – jest to stygmatyzujące i krzywdzące. Wystarczy, by podlegały one pod ogólną regulację mówiącą o świadomym narażeniu na zakażenie chorobą zakaźną. Walka ze stygmatyzacją osób zakażonych jest priorytetem wielu programów wspierania osób z HIV, także na forum międzynarodowym – mówiła na początku grudnia. Jak wyjaśniła, rekomendacje te zostały przesłane do Ministerstwa Sprawiedliwości.

Chodzi też o zmniejszenie kary

Wniosek resortu zdrowia w tej sprawie już w lutym br. został skierowany do Komisji Kodyfikacyjnej Prawa Karnego przy Ministrze Sprawiedliwości. Zawarto w nim propozycję złagodzenia wymiaru kary i jej dostosowania do aktualnej wiedzy medycznej w zakresie HIV/AIDS oraz wiedzy prawnej.

MZ zaproponowało nową treść art. 161: “Kto, wiedząc, że jest dotknięty chorobą weneryczną lub zakaźną, ciężką chorobą nieuleczalną lub realnie zagrażającą życiu, naraża bezpośrednio inną osobę na zarażenie tym wirusem lub taką chorobą, podlega karze pozbawienia wolności od 3 miesięcy do lat 3”.

Oznacza to, że poza wykreśleniem z przepisu nazwy wirusa HIV, ministerstwo chce też, aby złagodzono maksymalny wymiar kary do jego pierwotnej wersji, czyli odejścia od pięciu na rzecz trzech lat. Tyle przewidywano w latach 90. XX wieku, kiedy przepis wchodził w życie.

Resort zdrowia wyjaśnił, że początkowo, przy znacznie niższym stanie wiedzy medycznej, maksymalny wymiar kary i tak był niższy, niż obecny. “Przy czym wiedza medyczna, dostępność środków zapobiegających zakażeniom, wiedza ogółu społeczeństwa o HIV/AIDS i sposobach zapobiegania zakażeniu oraz dostępność, jakość i skuteczność leczenia antyretrowirusowego końca XX w. i obecnie są nieporównywalne” – podkreślono w piśmie do Ministerstwa Sprawiedliwości.

“Zmieniła się wiedza medyczna”

MZ zaproponowało również, by złagodzić do pięciu lat karę w paragrafie trzecim tego samego artykułu, która obecnie przewiduje – w przypadku narażenia na zakażenie wielu osób – pozbawienie wolności od roku do 10 lat.

W uzasadnieniu skierowanym do Komisji Kodyfikacyjnej Prawa Karnego przy Ministrze Sprawiedliwości resort zdrowia opisał zmiany, jakie zaszły na przestrzeni lat w możliwościach leczenia osób zakażonych wirusem HIV.

“Nie ulega wątpliwości, że celowa i skuteczna transmisja HIV na osobę w celu zniszczenia jej zdrowia stanowi działanie o charakterze przestępczym. Jednakże, przypadki celowej i świadomej transmisji wirusa są niezwykle rzadkie, podobnie jak przypadki zaniedbań ze strony pracowników ochrony zdrowia” – podkreślono.

W dokumencie wskazano na statystyki policji: liczba stwierdzonych przestępstw narażenia na chorobę wywołaną wirusem HIV, zakaźną lub weneryczną (art. 161 par. 1-2) w latach 1999-2020 nigdy nie przekroczyła 20 rocznie, a średnio wyniosła 13.

Europa Zachodnia wzorem

“Tego rodzaju czyny mogą być ścigane na podstawie innych, ogólnych przepisów prawa, co powoduje, że zbędne staje się zachowanie istniejących lub tworzenie dodatkowych przepisów dotyczących wyłącznie HIV” – zaznaczono w piśmie MZ. Dodano, że współczesne możliwości leczenia osób z HIV dają 96 proc. redukcję ryzyka transmisji zakażenia, a tym samym leczenie pozwala na przerwanie łańcucha epidemiologicznego nowych zakażeń, poprawiając bezpieczeństwo całej populacji.

Według danych organizacji pozarządowej HIV Justice Network, obecnie przepisy karne wspominają o HIV w 75 krajach, w trzech częściach świata: Stanach Zjednoczonych, Europie Wschodniej/Azji Środkowej i Afryce Subsaharyjskiej.

“W Unii Europejskiej jedynie kilka państw członkowskich wprowadziło zapisy prawne konkretnie dotyczące narażenia na lub transmisji HIV. Dania, która w 2001 r. wprowadziła jako jedyny kraj w Europie Zachodniej zapisy karne, zawiesiła je już 10 lat później. Rumunia i Łotwa również przyjęły przepisy karne dotyczące HIV, jednakże wskaźniki kryminalizacji kształtują się na bardzo niskim poziomie” – zwrócił uwagę resort zdrowia.

Ministerstwo Sprawiedliwości: rozważamy, nie pracujemy nad zmianami

Komisja Kodyfikacyjna Prawa Karnego przy Ministrze Sprawiedliwości wydała opinię na temat wniosku Ministerstwa Zdrowia. Zawarto w niej szereg wątpliwości dotyczących propozycji, m.in. co do braku spójności. Jednocześnie jednak stwierdzono, że postulat, by przepis nie zawierał już określenia “wirus HIV” – ale pod warunkiem zachowania dotychczasowego zakresu kryminalizacji – jest “niewątpliwie godny rozważenia”.

Na pytanie o ewentualną zmianę przepisu, Ministerstwo Sprawiedliwości odpowiedziało, że “resort nie prowadzi takich prac”.

“Niemniej, na kanwie postulatów Krajowego Centrum ds. AIDS, pomiędzy Ministrem Sprawiedliwości, a Ministrem Zdrowia trwa wymiana korespondencji i opinii, która dotyczy właśnie ewentualnych zmian w art. 161 par. 1 i 3 k.k. Dopiero po zakończeniu tych ustaleń będzie możliwe stwierdzenie, czy w opisywanym przez Krajowe Centrum ds. AIDS zakresie, przepis będzie zmieniany” – dodał Wydział Prasowy MS.

HIV i AIDS w Polsce i na świecie

Pierwszy przypadek zakażenia wirusem HIV w Polsce wykryto w 1985 roku. Od tamtego czasu do końca 2023 r. odnotowano niespełna 33 tys. zakażeń, ponad 4 tys. osób zachorowało na AIDS, 1496 chorych zmarło. Na świecie – w 2023 r. żyło z HIV prawie 40 mln osób. Wirusem zakaziło się 1,3 mln nowych osób, a 630 tys. zmarło na choroby związane z AIDS.

W 2023 r. w Polsce wykryto rekordowo dużo zakażeń HIV – 2879. To ponad dwukrotnie więcej niż dane roczne sprzed dekady. Według Narodowego Instytutu Zdrowia Publicznego 322 osoby zakaziły się w Polsce w 2023 r. w wyniku kontaktów homoseksualnych, a 214 osób – w wyniku kontaktów heteroseksualnych. Dodatkowo 36 zgłosiło zakażenie poprzez przyjmowanie narkotyków w iniekcjach, a 25 – poprzez zakażenia wertykalne, czyli matka-dziecko. Większość osób, u których wykryto zakażenie HIV, znalazła się w grupie “brak danych o źródle zakażenia”.

Obecnie, dzięki postępowi medycyny, jeśli osoba żyjąca z HIV przyjmuje regularnie leki antyretrowirusowe i przez pół roku ma niewykrywalną wiremię (stan definiowany jako obecność we krwi mogących się namnażać wirusów) jest niezakaźna dla partnerów seksualnych zgodnie z zasadą “n=n”, czyli “niewykrywalny=niezakażający”.

HIV to ludzki wirus upośledzenia odporności (ang. human immunodeficiency virus). Zakażenie może przez wiele lat przebiegać bezobjawowo, co bardzo utrudnia diagnozę. Przez nawet 8-10 lat może nie dawać żadnych symptomów, jednak w tym czasie wirus cały czas namnaża się i niszczy odporność zakażonej osoby. Może wywołać zespół nabytego upośledzenia odporności – AIDS.

Mexico: Legislator proposes repeal of HIV criminalisation statute in State of Mexico

They ask to avoid criminalization of people with HIV/AIDS in a legal framework

Translated from Spanish with Deepl.com. Scroll down for original article.

On behalf of the civil association Fuera del Clóset, in the Mexican Congress, Deputy Luisa Esmeralda Navarro Hernández proposed repealing the rules of the state Criminal Code that are discriminatory and violating the human rights of those living with the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) or diagnosed with acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS).

In a deliberative session, accompanied by legislators wearing T-shirts with the message “Undetectable = Untransmissible,” Luisa Esmeralda Navarro assured that currently this regulatory framework criminalizes people with incurable diseases, in articles that presuppose their guilt in cases equivalent to crimes of homicide and aggravated injuries.

In the presence of activists, she explained that the legislation, for example, provides for the punishment as homicide of “whoever knowing that they suffer from a serious, incurable and deadly disease, infects another or causes death.”

In addition to considering as aggravating factors of the crime of injury, with penalties of two to eight years in prison and a fine of 120 to 250 days, when “incurable disease” occurs, in a category equivalent to other consequences, such as mental alienation, permanent loss of a member or any organic function or a permanent incapacity to work.

The State Penal Code also contains a chapter called “Danger of Contagion”, which states that, anyone who knowing that they suffers from a serious illness during an infectious period, puts another in danger of contagion, by any means of transmission, will be subject to a penalty of six months to two years in prison and a fine of 30 to 60 days.

According to the citizen initiative, this presupposes the obligation of a person accused of having transmitted a disease or virus to another, in this case HIV, to carry out a clinical analysis and expose their state of health, which implies a violation of their privacy, placing them in a risk situation in their family, friendship, work, educational and social spaces, which, added to the aforementioned article, implies “a serious risk for people with HIV/AIDS”, in terms of their physical, emotional, psychological and economic integrity.

Additionally, the document states, the result of these accusations can be maximized and become dangerous situations for this sector of the population, when they are combined with the ignorance of the authorities in charge of the procurement and administration of justice.

For this reason, it is proposed to eliminate from Fraction V of Article 238 the aggravating circumstance related to “when injuries produce incurable disease”; repeal the second paragraph of article 241 which establishes that the knowing contagion of the disease will be sanctioned as homicide; as well as article 252 referring to the “danger of contagion”.

The deputy recognised the work of the civil association Fuera del Clóset for the promotion of initiatives to combat discrimination.

Piden evitar criminalización de personas con VIH/SIDA en marco legal

A nombre de la asociación civil Fuera del Clóset, en el Congreso mexiquense, le diputade Luisa Esmeralda Navarro Hernández (morena) planteó derogar las normas del Código Penal estatal que resultan discriminatorias y violatorias de los derechos humanos de quienes viven con el virus de inmunodeficiencia humana (VIH) o con diagnóstico de síndrome de inmunodeficiencia adquirida (SIDA).

En sesión deliberante, acompañada por legisladoras y legisladores portando playeras con el mensaje “Indetectable = Intransmisible”, Luisa Esmeralda Navarro aseguró que actualmente este marco normativo criminaliza a personas con enfermedades incurables, en artículos que presuponen su culpabilidad en casos equivalentes a delitos de homicidio y lesiones agravadas.

En presencia de activistas, explicó que la legislación, por ejemplo, prevé sancionar como homicidio a “quien a sabiendas de que padece una enfermedad grave, incurable y mortal, contagie a otro o le cause la muerte”.

Además de que considera como agravantes del delito de lesiones, con penas de dos a ocho años de prisión y de 120 a 250 días multa, cuando se produzca “enfermedad incurable”, en una categoría equivalente a otras consecuencias, como la enajenación mental, pérdida definitiva de algún miembro o de cualquier función orgánica o una incapacidad permanente para trabajar.

El Código Penal estatal también contiene un capítulo denominado “Peligro de Contagio”, el cual señala que, a quien sabiendo que padece una enfermedad grave en período infectante, ponga en peligro de contagio a otro, por cualquier medio de transmisión, se le aplicará una pena de seis meses a dos años de prisión y de 30 a 60 días multa.

De acuerdo con la iniciativa ciudadana, esto presupone la obligación de una persona acusada de haber transmitido una enfermedad o virus a otra, en este caso VIH, a realizarse un análisis clínico y exponer su estado de salud, lo que implica una violación a su privacidad, colocándole en una situación de riesgo en sus espacios familiares, de amistad, laborales, educativos y sociales, lo que, sumado al articulado antes expuesto, implica “un grave riesgo para las personas con VIH/SIDA”, en cuanto a su integridad física, emocional, psicológica y económica.

Adicionalmente, señala el documento, el resultado de esas acusaciones puede maximizarse y convertirse en situaciones de peligro para dicho sector de la población, cuando se conjuntan con el desconocimiento de las autoridades encargadas en la procuración y administración de justicia.

Por tal motivo, se propone eliminar de la Fracción V del Artículo 238 la agravante relacionada a “cuando las lesiones produzcan enfermedad incurable”; derogar el segundo párrafo del artículo 241 que establece que se sancionará como homicidio el contagio a sabiendas de la enfermedad; al igual que el artículo 252 referente al “peligro de contagio”.

Le diputade reconoció la labor de la asociación civil Fuera del Clóset por el impulso de iniciativas para combatir la discriminación.

Canada: Calls for action grow as political calculations leave HIV law reform in limbo

Government abandons efforts to decriminalise people living with HIV

Translated from French with Deepl.com – For original article, please scroll down.

In the run-up to World AIDS Day on 1 December and the federal election of 2025, the Government of Canada has informed the Canadian Coalition to Reform HIV Criminalisation (CCRCV) of its decision to abandon any plans for legislative reform concerning the criminalisation of HIV. People living with HIV are left with no explanation, knowing only that their rights are being set aside once again. Anger and disappointment at this abandonment.

A critical moment

This decision could not have come at a worse time. Canada currently ranks last among G7 countries when it comes to reducing new HIV infections. The number of reported cases has been rising steadily in Canada since 2020, taking us further and further away from our targets. The criminalization of HIV and the resulting stigma contribute to this alarming trend, in addition to placing Canada at odds with science and outside the global consensus on how best to reduce HIV transmission and respect the rights and dignity of people living with HIV. In a press release issued on November 26, UNAIDS pointed out that ‘the criminalization and stigmatization of marginalized communities hinders access to life-saving HIV services’.

The current situation

Currently, people living with HIV in Canada are subject to criminal prosecution under sexual assault laws, resulting in convictions, imprisonment and inclusion on the sex offender registry even in cases where there is little or no risk of transmission. Legal and medical experts around the world agree that this is not in line with current scientific knowledge about transmission and can deter people from getting tested and accessing treatment and support. In Canada, it is well documented that the harms of HIV criminalisation are uniquely, disproportionately and often insidiously experienced by black and aboriginal people.

A call to action

‘We’ve had enough of the lives of people living with HIV being used to play political games,’ says Alex McClelland of the CCRVC. ‘Good intentions and scrapped action plans don’t change the reality of life for people in Canada who are persecuted because of their health status. Law reform requires a concrete effort, a real commitment and the political will to do the right thing. Unfortunately, the Canadian government seems to be putting people living with HIV on the back burner in favour of political calculations for an election’.

A history of broken commitments

Members of the CCRCV have been working with the current federal government to reform the criminalisation of HIV since it was elected in 2015. The CCRCV had hoped that change would come soon, following national consultations launched by the government in December 2022. These consultations followed numerous acknowledgements by the government that the status quo is harmful:

In 2016, Canada’s Minister of Justice acknowledged for the first time that the criminalisation of HIV non-disclosure in this country is excessive.
In 2018, the Minister implemented a directive to limit charges related to HIV non-disclosure from federal jurisdictions (which is limited to the three territories), ending the use of sexual assault laws in this context. This recommendation was reiterated in a 2019 government report following its own review of HIV criminalisation.
In 2022, Canada launched a Federal 2ELGBTQI+ Action Plan promising to hold consultations on reforming the Criminal Code. These consultations, announced on the world stage on the eve of the 2023 International AIDS Conference, concluded in January 2023. The report of the consultations reaffirmed that the use of sexual assault laws was inappropriate.
Then the Prime Minister of Canada, Justin Trudeau, reiterated in his statement on World AIDS Day last year: ‘The current criminal law regarding non-disclosure punishes people living with HIV and AIDS too harshly and stigmatises them, discouraging them from seeking treatment and testing.’

Members of the CRCVC met with the Minister of Justice on several occasions after the consultations ended (in early 2023) and were promised concrete reform measures. To date, the Government of Canada has still not publicly informed people living with HIV why the promises made to them will not be kept, and why it is abandoning the path of law reform.

A new call to action

On World AIDS Day, the CCRCV is once again calling on the federal government to show good faith, leadership and concrete action to end the excessive criminalisation of people living with HIV in this country. The community has been fighting this battle for a long time, and what is lacking today is the government’s will to adopt a reform that is consistent with human rights and scientific consensus. The Canadian Coalition to Reform HIV Criminalization remains committed to this long-overdue change – and the power of the community’s collective voice will not be silenced.

The Canadian Coalition to Reform HIV Criminalization is a national coalition of people living with HIV, community organizations, advocates, researchers and others. It was formed in October 2016. To find out more, click here.

The Community Consensus Statement 2022, which details the community’s demands for law and policy reform, following consultation, is online here.

What is HIV criminalisation?

HIV criminalisation describes the unfair application of criminal law against people living with HIV solely on the basis of their HIV status. This includes the application of specific criminal law provisions or the application of general criminal law to prosecute people living with HIV for unintentional transmission of HIV, perceived or potential exposure to HIV and/or non-disclosure of HIV by a person who knows their status.

The criminalisation of HIV is a growing global phenomenon that undermines public health and human rights, thereby weakening the response to HIV.

What behaviours are targeted by these laws?

The criminalisation of HIV exists through the application of specific criminal law provisions or through the application of general criminal law exclusively or disproportionately against HIV-positive people.

In many cases, laws relating to the criminalisation of HIV are overly broad, either in their explicit wording, or in the way they have been interpreted and applied, leaving people living with HIV (and those perceived by the authorities to be at risk of HIV) extremely vulnerable to numerous human rights violations.

In general, these laws are used to prosecute individuals who are aware of their HIV status, who are presumed not to have disclosed their HIV status prior to having sex (HIV non-disclosure), or who are perceived to have potentially exposed others to HIV (HIV exposure), or who are perceived to have transmitted HIV (HIV transmission).

In many countries, a person living with HIV convicted of other ‘crimes’, including, but not limited to, sex work, or a person who spits or bites a member of law enforcement at the time of arrest or during incarceration, often faces harsher sentences, even when HIV exposure or transmission was not possible, or at most represented a very small risk.

How widespread is the criminalisation of HIV?

As of March 2023, 91 countries (114 jurisdictions) have some form of HIV-specific criminal law, and a further 41 countries (61 jurisdictions) are known to have applied general criminal provisions to prosecute people living with HIV for presumed non-disclosure of HIV, perceived or potential exposure to HIV, and/or unintentional transmission.

What impact does the criminalisation of HIV have on the HIV response?

The criminalisation of HIV compromises public health objectives in many ways.

Prosecutions, and the media attention that follows, isolate and dramatise HIV in a highly stigmatising way, presenting the HIV diagnosis as a catastrophe and HIV-positive people as an inherent threat to society. Suggesting criminal prosecution as a first or appropriate response to perceived or potential exposure to HIV is not an appropriate approach. This type of stigma makes it even more difficult to disclose HIV to intimate partners. Some evidence suggests that the criminalisation of HIV may discourage individuals from getting tested, particularly among communities most vulnerable to HIV infection. Encouraging HIV testing is an essential element of an effective response: a positive diagnosis is the first step towards access to health-enhancing antiretroviral treatment, and a negative result is the first step towards access to pre-exposure prophylaxis, two essential tools in HIV prevention.

The criminalisation of HIV can also undermine the therapeutic relationship between a person living with HIV and healthcare staff, and thus reduce the ability of carers to offer frank support and advice on risk reduction strategies. Indeed, some healthcare providers have been forced to testify in court about their exchanges with their patients.

The criminalisation of HIV also undermines research into HIV prevention, treatment and care because researchers and participants fear that data normally kept confidential will be seized by law enforcement agencies and used in a criminal case. It also reinforces concerns about the use of new technologies to monitor the epidemic, such as HIV molecular surveillance.

What impact does the criminalisation of HIV have on human rights?

The criminalisation of HIV undermines the rights of people living with HIV, many of whom also belong to marginalised or criminalised communities. Threats of denunciation to the police for non-disclosure of HIV have been used as a form of abuse or reprisal against current or former HIV-positive partners. The criminalisation of HIV exposes people living with HIV – particularly women (but not only) – to increased risks of violence and abuse and ignores the fact that some people are unable to safely disclose their status or ask their partner to use a condom.

Stigmatising statements by law enforcement or public health agencies, and media coverage, including the publication of full names and photos of people being prosecuted – even if they are only allegations – can have dramatic consequences for people living with HIV whose HIV status is publicly revealed in this way and who are portrayed as criminals. Such revelations can lead to loss of employment or housing, social ostracism or even physical violence. Investigations and prosecutions often have a disproportionate impact on racial and sexual minorities, migrants and women. Defendants with few resources do not necessarily have access to adequate legal representation.

In some cases, the most serious offences under a country’s criminal law (e.g. aggravated assault, sexual assault and attempted murder) are used to prosecute alleged HIV non-disclosure prior to consensual sex. Penalties are often disproportionate to the harm caused, such as long prison sentences and/or registration as a sex offender. People who do not have the nationality of their country of residence also risk deportation if found guilty, which for some may mean the end of their treatment or access to care.

À l’approche de la Journée mondiale du sida, 1^er décembre, et des élections fédérales de 2025, le Gouvernement du Canada a communiqué à la Coalition canadienne pour réformer la criminalisation du VIH (CCRCV) sa décision d’abandonner tout projet de réforme législative concernant la criminalisation du VIH. Les personnes vivant avec le VIH sont laissées sans explication, sachant seulement que leurs droits sont mis de côté une fois de plus. Colère et déception devant cet abandon.

Un moment critique

Cette décision ne pourrait pas tomber à un pire moment. Le Canada se classe actuellement dernier parmi les pays du G7 en ce qui concerne la réduction des nouvelles infections à VIH. Le nombre de cas déclarés est en hausse constante au Canada depuis 2020, nous éloignant de plus en plus de nos objectifs. La criminalisation du VIH et la stigmatisation qui en résulte contribuent à cette tendance alarmante, en plus de placer le Canada en contradiction avec la science et hors du consensus mondial sur la meilleure façon de réduire la transmission du VIH et de respecter les droits et la dignité des personnes vivant avec le VIH. L’ONUSIDA a souligné dans son communiqué de presse, le 26 novembre dernier, que « [l]a criminalisation et la stigmatisation des communautés marginalisées entravent l’accès aux services de lutte contre le VIH qui peuvent sauver des vies ».

La situation actuelle

Actuellement, les personnes vivant avec le VIH au Canada sont passibles de poursuites pénales en vertu des lois sur les agressions sexuelles, entraînant des condamnations, l’emprisonnement et l’inscription au registre des délinquants sexuels même dans des cas où le risque de transmission est faible ou nul. Des expert-es juridiques et de la médecine, aux quatre coins du monde, s’accordent pour dire que cela ne correspond pas aux connaissances scientifiques d’aujourd’hui sur la transmission et peut dissuader des personnes de se faire dépister et d’accéder aux traitements et à du soutien. Au Canada, il est bien documenté que les préjudices de la criminalisation du VIH sont vécus de manière unique, disproportionnée et souvent insidieuse par les personnes noires et les autochtones.

Un appel à l’action

« Nous en avons assez de voir la vie des personnes vivant avec le VIH servir à des jeux politiques! », déclare Alex McClelland, de la CCRVC. « Les belles intentions et les plans d’action mis au rancart ne changent pas la réalité de la vie pour les personnes au Canada que l’on persécute en raison de leur état de santé. La réforme du droit exige un effort concret, un véritable engagement et une volonté politique de faire ce qui est juste. Malheureusement, le gouvernement canadien semble mettre de côté les personnes vivant avec le VIH au profit d’un calcul politique en vue d’une élection. »

Un historique d’engagements non respectés

Des membres de la CCRCV travaillent avec le gouvernement fédéral actuel pour réformer la criminalisation du VIH depuis son élection en 2015. La CCRCV espérait que le changement ne tarde plus, après les consultations nationales lancées par le gouvernement en décembre 2022. Ces consultations faisaient suite à de nombreuses reconnaissances, par le gouvernement, que le statu quo est néfaste :

En 2016, la ministre de la Justice du Canada a reconnu pour la première fois que la criminalisation de la non-divulgation du VIH au pays est excessive.
En 2018, la ministre a mis en œuvre une directive visant à limiter les accusations liées à la non-divulgation du VIH, de la part des instances fédérales (ce qui se limite aux trois territoires), mettant fin à l’utilisation des lois sur les agressions sexuelles dans ce contexte. Cette recommandation a été réitérée dans un rapport gouvernemental de 2019 à l’issue de sa propre étude de la criminalisation du VIH.
En 2022, le Canada a lancé un Plan d’action fédéral 2ELGBTQI+ promettant de tenir des consultations sur la réforme du Code criminel. Ces consultations, annoncées sur la scène mondiale à la veille du Congrès international sur le sida de 2023, se sont conclues en janvier 2023. Le rapport des consultations a réaffirmé que le recours aux lois sur l’agression sexuelle était inapproprié.
Puis le premier ministre du Canada, Justin Trudeau, a réitéré dans sa déclaration à l’occasion de la Journée mondiale du sida de l’an dernier : « Le droit pénal actuel en ce qui a trait à la non-divulgation réprime trop durement les personnes vivant avec le VIH et le sida et les stigmatise, ce qui les décourage de se faire soigner et dépister.»

Des membres de la CCRVC ont rencontré le ministre de la Justice à plusieurs reprises après la fin des consultations (début 2023) et se sont vu promettre des mesures de réforme concrètes. À ce jour, le Gouvernement du Canada n’a toujours pas informé publiquement les personnes vivant avec le VIH des raisons pour lesquelles les promesses qu’on leur a faites ne seront pas tenues, et des raisons pour lesquelles il abandonne la voie de la réforme du droit.

Un nouvel appel à l’action

Dans le cadre de la Journée mondiale du sida, la CCRCV appelle une fois de plus le gouvernement fédéral à démontrer sa bonne foi, à faire preuve de leadership et à agir concrètement pour mettre fin à la criminalisation excessive des personnes vivant avec le VIH dans ce pays. La communauté mène depuis longtemps cette bataille, et ce qui manque aujourd’hui est la volonté du gouvernement d’adopter une réforme en accord avec les droits humains et le consensus scientifique. La Coalition canadienne pour réformer la criminalisation du VIH reste engagée en faveur de ce changement qui est dû depuis longtemps – et le pouvoir de la voix collective de la communauté ne sera pas réduit au silence.

Rappelons que la Coalition canadienne pour réformer la criminalisation du VIH est une coalition nationale de personnes vivant avec le VIH, d’organismes communautaires, d’avocat-es, de chercheur(-euse)s et d’autres intéressé-es. Elle a été formée en octobre 2016. Pour en savoir plus, cliquez ici.

La Déclaration de consensus communautaire 2022, qui décrit en détail les demandes de la communauté pour réformer le droit et les politiques, après des consultations, est en ligne ici.

Qu’est ce que la pénalisation du VIH?

La criminalisation du VIH décrit l’application injuste du droit pénal contre les personnes vivant avec le VIH sur la seule base de leur statut sérologique. Ceci comprend l’application de dispositions pénales spécifiques ou l’application du droit pénal général pour poursuivre des personnes vivant avec le VIH pour transmission involontaire du VIH, exposition perçue ou éventuelle au VIH et/ou non-divulgation du VIH par une personne qui connaît son statut.

La criminalisation du VIH est un phénomène mondial croissant qui nuit à la santé publique et aux droits humains, affaiblissant ainsi la riposte au VIH.

Quels sont les comportements visés par ces lois?

La pénalisation du VIH existe avec l’application de dispositions pénales spécifiques ou par l’application du droit pénal généralexclusivement ou disproportionnellement contre les personnes séropositives

Dans de nombreux cas, les lois se rapportant à la pénalisation du VIH sont trop générales, que ce soit dans leurs formulations explicites, ou dans la façon dont elles ont été interprétées et appliquées, ce qui rend les personnes vivant avec le VIH (et les personnes perçues par les autorités comme exposées aux risques de VIH) extrêmement vulnérables à de nombreuses violations des droits de l’homme.

En général, ces lois sont utilisées pour poursuivre les individus conscients de leur VIH, qui sont présumés ne pas avoir divulgué leur statut sérologique avant d’avoir des rapports sexuels (non-divulgation du VIH), ou qui sont perçus comme ayant potentiellement exposé autrui au VIH (exposition au VIH), ou perçus comme ayant transmis le VIH (transmission du VIH).

Dans de nombreux pays, une personne vivant avec le VIH reconnue coupable d’autres “crimes”, notamment, mais pas exclusivement, pour le travail du sexe, ou une personne qui crache ou qui mord un membre des forces de l’ordre au moment de son arrestation ou pendant son incarcération, fait souvent face à des condamnations plus sévères, même lorsque l’exposition ou la transmission du VIH n’était pas possible, ou qu’elle représentait au plus, un risque très petit.

Quelle est l’étendue de la pénalisation du VIH?

En mars 2023, 91 pays (114 juridictions) disposent d’une forme de droit pénal spécifique au VIH, et on sait que 41 autres pays (61 juridictions) ont appliqué des dispositions pénales générales pour poursuivre des personnes vivant avec le VIH pour non-divulgation présumée du VIH, exposition perçue ou potentielle au VIH, et/ou transmission non intentionnelle.

Quelles sont les conséquences de la pénalisation du VIH sur la riposte au VIH?

La pénalisation du VIH compromet les objectifs de santé publique à bien des égards.

Les poursuites, et l’attraction médiatique qui s’ensuit, isole et dramatise le VIH de façon fortement stigmatisante, en présentant le diagnostic de VIH comme une catastrophe et les personnes séropositives comme une menace inhérente pour la société. Suggérer des poursuites pénales comme une première réponse ou une réponse adaptée en cas d’exposition perçue ou éventuelle au VIH n’est pas une approche appropriée. Ce type de stigmatisation rend encore plus difficile la divulgation du VIH aux partenaires intimes. Certaines données suggèrent que la pénalisation du VIH pourrait dissuader les individus à faire le test de dépistage, particulièrement parmi les communautés les plus vulnérables à l’infection au VIH. Encourager le dépistage du VIH est un élément essentiel pour une riposte efficace: un diagnostic positif est la première étape vers l’accès au traitement antirétroviral bénéfique à la santé, et un résultat négatif, la première étape vers l’accès à la prophylaxie pré-exposition, deux outils essentiels de la prévention du VIH.

La pénalisation du VIH peut également nuire à la relation thérapeutique entre une personne vivant avec le VIH et le personnel de santé, et ainsi réduire la capacité des soignants à offrir un soutien et des conseils francs sur les stratégies de réduction des risques. En effet, certains prestataires de santé ont été obligés de témoigner devant les tribunaux au sujet de leurs échanges avec leurs patients.

La pénalisation du VIH porte également atteinte à la recherche dans les domaines de la prévention, du traitement et des soins du VIH en raison de la crainte des chercheurs et des participants de voir des données normalement tenues confidentielles saisies par les forces de l’ordre et utilisées dans une affaire criminelle. Elle renforce également les inquiétudes quant à l’utilisation de nouvelles technologies pour suivre l’évolution de l’épidémie, comme par exemple la surveillance moléculaire du VIH.

Quel est l’impact de la pénalisation du VIH sur les droits de l’homme?

La pénalisation du VIH porte atteinte aux droits des personnes vivant avec le VIH, dont beaucoup appartiennent aussi à des communautés marginalisées ou criminalisées. Des menaces de dénonciation à la police pour non-divulgation du VIH ont été utilisées comme forme d’abus ou de représailles à l’encontre de partenaires séropositifs présents ou passés. La pénalisation du VIH expose les personnes vivant avec le VIH – et plus particulièrement les femmes (mais pas uniquement) – à des risques accrus de violence et de maltraitance et ignore le fait que certaines personnes ne sont pas en mesure de divulguer leur statut sans danger ou de demander à leur partenaire d’utiliser un préservatif.

Les déclarations stigmatisantes des forces de l’ordre ou des agences de santé publique, et la couverture médiatique, y compris la publication des noms complets et de photos de personnes poursuivies– même s’il ne s’agit que d’allégations – peuvent avoir des conséquences dramatiques pour les personnes vivant avec le VIH dont le statut sérologique est ainsi révélé publiquement et qui sont présentés comme des criminels. De telles révélations peuvent entrainer une perte d’emploi, de logement, l’ostracisme social ou même à la violence physique. Les enquêtes et les poursuites ont souvent un impact disproportionné sur les minorités raciales et sexuelles, les migrants et les femmes. Les accusés disposant de peu de ressources n’ont pas forcément accès à une représentation juridique adéquate.

Dans certains cas, les infractions les plus graves du droit pénal d’un pays (par exemple voies de fait graves, agression sexuelle et tentative de meurtre) sont utilisées pour poursuivre la non-divulgation du VIH alléguée avant des relations sexuelles consensuelles. Les sanctions sont souvent disproportionnées par rapport au préjudice causé, comme de longues peines d’emprisonnement et / ou l’enregistrement en tant que délinquant sexuel. Les personnes qui n’ont pas la nationalité de leur pays de résidence risquent aussi d’être expulsées s’ils sont reconnus coupable, ce qui peut signifier, pour certains, la fin de leur traitement ou et de l’accès aux soins.

Uganda: Controversial proposals on HIV transmission and the death penalty rejected

The following is an extract from an article on the inaugural consideration of the Sexual Offences Bill, 2024, a comprehensive piece of legislation aimed at reforming laws around sexual violence and exploitation

The proposal to include the deliberate transmission of HIV to minors as an aggravating factor in cases of sexual violence was debated during the inaugural consideration of the Sexual Offences Bill by the Joint Committee of Legal and Gender Affairs.

Anna Adeke, the Member of Parliament for Soroti District Woman Representative, who had tabled the Sexual Offences Bill had suggested that spreading HIV to a minor during a sexual assault should elevate the crime to aggravated rape, carrying heavier penalties.

However, Fox Odoi, the MP for West Budama North East, and several other MPs rejected this idea, arguing that it could further stigmatize people living with HIV and be difficult to prove.

“There are many people living with HIV who are not aware of their status, and others who are on ARV treatment but still test positive,” Odoi explained.

“The Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) herself has expressed concerns about the difficulty of prosecuting these cases, as proving knowledge of an HIV-positive status is virtually impossible.”

The debate also extended to the issue of the death penalty for rapists. Adeke had proposed that the death penalty be imposed on individuals convicted of rape, particularly in cases where the victim is a minor. Odoi, a staunch opponent of the death penalty, questioned the fairness and necessity of such a harsh punishment.

“Why are we introducing the death penalty for rape when other more egregious crimes like mass murder and genocide do not carry such a penalty?” Odoi asked.

He further criticised the proposal, stating, “In principle, I don’t support the death penalty for any offense. I thought we had moved away from this position as a country.”

While Adeke expressed disappointment over the rejection of her proposals, she acknowledged the challenges in achieving consensus on the Bill.

The Joint Committee of Legal and Gender Affairs is expected to continue its review of the Sexual Offences Bill, 2024, with further consultations and amendments.

The Bill, which aims to tackle issues of sexual violence, exploitation, and human trafficking, has sparked heated debates on the appropriate legal framework for addressing these sensitive issues.

As MPs grapple with the complexities of regulating sex work, preventing the spread of HIV, and ensuring justice for sexual violence victims, the discussions on the Bill are likely to remain contentious.

The Committee will be under pressure to strike a balance between protecting vulnerable groups and adopting practical policies that reflect the realities of Ugandan society.

Australia: Migration policies for People with HIV perpetuate criminalisation and expose them to harm

David Carter Delivers Keynote at the Australasian HIV&AIDS Conference

Health+Law’s research lead David Carter, delivered a keynote address at the recent ASHM HIV Conference in Sydney, exploring the controversial past and present of HIV criminalisation in Australia. His urgent, provocative address challenged us to consider how current legal and policy processes in migration law recreate conditions of criminalisation, producing serious health and other harms for people living with HIV. 

Talking to Health+Law researchers in an interview about legal issues, Sergio*, a man in his thirties originally from South America and living with HIV, described the experience of migration to Australia:

I didn’t have to face any court, but I [did] have to prove that I wasn’t a bad person just because I have HIV […] I [had] to prove myself to someone else, who probably is not living with HIV, that I was not a bad person, and I was a good citizen and I deserve to be here.

The migration process is a complex one – and this complexity is amplified for people living with HIV. Sergio’s reflections express a particularly grim aspect of this process for migrants, especially those living with HIV.

Indeed, as Scientia Associate Professor David Carter, Health+Law’s research lead, argued in an invited keynote at the 2024 Australasian HIV&AIDS Conference hosted by ASHM Health in September this year, the experience of people living with HIV seeking to migrate to Australia is part of Australia’s long history of the criminalisation of HIV. Speaking to delegates from Australia, New Zealand, Asia and the Pacific at Sydney’s International Convention Centre on Gadigal Country, David reminded the audience that criminalisation is a policy approach, that doesn’t just use the criminal law. To show this he set out five stages of criminalisation that are also evident in the migration process for those living with HIV.

First, as he explained, criminalisation characterises specific behaviour as harmful or carrying a risk of harm to the community. In this case the harm presented is, to quote Australian migration law, that a person’s HIV care represents a ‘significant cost to the Australian community or prejudice [to] the access of Australian citizens or permanent residents to health care or community services’.

Second, criminalisation creates a suspect population, made up of people thought to warrant suspicion because they come to be associated with the potential harm.

Third and fourth, this suspect population attracts surveillance from the state, with a hierarchy created within the suspect population whereby some members are subject to further and intensified surveillance.

Fifth, and finally, some members of this suspect population are subjected ‘to the most severe forms of the state’s coercive and punitive authority’, including investigation, more intensive supervision, detention or arrest, and in some cases, criminal or civil proceedings.

The criminalisation of HIV has a long and storied history, going back to the very early days of the AIDS crisis. Vocal members of HIV-affected communities, legal and human rights advocates and many others have argued strongly against criminalisation, viewing it as draconian and as an approach to public (health) policy with very negative consequences for HIV epidemics.

In Australia, arguments against HIV-specific criminal offences have been broadly successful, and yet the ‘temptation’ to criminalise – as the very first Australian National HIV Strategy described it – continues to emerge in some policy responses to HIV and other communicable diseases.

In 1987, when the authors of the first national HIV strategy were writing, they were warning against measures including compulsory universal HIV testing, the closure of gay venues, criminal penalties for HIV transmission, and limitations on the movement of HIV positive people, including forced quarantine. Today, HIV criminalisation is operating in Australian migration policy and law.

‘This contemporary criminalisation of HIV begins’, David argued, ‘like all criminalisation, with the characterisation of behaviour in terms of harm and risk of harm’. He continued, arguing that:

This characterisation of migrating while HIV positive as harmful establishes, and in-turn enlivens, the suspect population management and criminalising processes of our medical border […] This criminalising logic establishes an adversarial relationship between the person living with HIV and the state, and between them and members of the Australian community, whose access to health care it is alleged may be prejudiced by providing care for a person living with HIV who wishes to migrate.

Among the many negative effects of this process is that it can discourage migrants living with HIV from engaging in testing, treatment and HIV care. Interviews conducted by Health+Law as part of our national legal needs (LeNS) study confirm that this is happening. They show that many migrants living with HIV in jurisdictions across Australia experienced an alienating and hostile environment: a ‘threat environment so elevated’, as David described it in his keynote, that they frequently described withdrawing from HIV care and community life as a coping mechanism.

Unfolding the history of ‘unjust and unhelpful’ HIV criminalisation in Australia, David outlined how the current legal and policy conditions that prospective migrants living with HIV face in Australia today work to recreate conditions of criminalisation and expose both individuals and the community to multiple health harms.

You can read more about David’s keynote in The Medical Republic’s coverage of the conference.

Canada: Human Rights groups denounce the use of anti-spit masks

Canada: The anti-spit mask, a controversial tool

Translated from French with Deepl.com – Scroll down for original article

Human rights groups that have set up the Tracking (In)Justice project are denouncing the use of the anti-spit mask, which police forces such as the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) regard as an ‘essential’ tool.

The mask, which is placed over the head of an arrestee who wants to spit or bite police officers, is causing controversy. The mask has been used during certain interventions after which the arrested person died, although no link has been formally established between the use of the mask and the person’s death.

A useful and used tool

The Calgary Police Service uses the anti-spit mask.

According to its data (New Window), this tool was used 70 times in 2022 and 2023, more often than pepper spray, but less often than conducted energy weapons.

Members of the RCMP also use them, but their use is not systematically recorded, because the RCMP considers the mask to be a restraint device in the same way as handcuffs,’ she said in an email to Radio-Canada.

According to the RCMP, the mask prevents biological contamination from diseases and infections such as hepatitis and HIV. It says that this type of injury is the most frequently mentioned by officers.

A controversy

Alexander McClelland, Associate Professor at the Institute of Criminology and Criminal Justice at Carleton University in Ottawa, believes that the personal protection argument does not hold water.

We don’t know of many diseases that are transmitted solely by saliva. For example, HIV and hepatitis C are not transmitted by saliva. COVID-19 is an airborne disease. So you need a mask to prevent it, not a mesh fabric,’ says the member of Tracking (In)Justice, which brings together several organisations and collects data on the application of the law and criminal law.

Alexander McClelland believes that the mask is a dehumanising tool that serves no purpose other than to prevent a person from spitting, which could be avoided by de-escalation measures.

A dangerous tool?

I know that there have been about nine cases in Canada [between 2014 and 2022] where people have died after using balaclavas,’ says Alexander McClelland. They are used when a person is forcibly immobilised on the ground, a bonnet is applied and they are sprayed with pepper spray.

The RCMP is clear on this point: the bonnet must not be used to control a prisoner. To this end, it cites studies showing that the use of the mask, according to the manufacturer’s instructions, is safe.

However, in an internal memo (New Window), Alberta Health says the following: [Anti-choking] bonnets interfere with airway assessment and management and present a considerable risk, for example if the patient vomits or chokes. Agitation is also increased by interference with the patient’s vision.

Supervision measures

Masks are safe if staff follow a precise protocol.

They are supposed to be used in a context where no other type of force is applied and when the person [to whom the bonnet is applied] is seated and able to breathe effectively and normally,’ says Alexander McClelland.

When other types of force are applied, such as ground restraint, or if someone is handcuffed, or if someone is in a heightened state of anxiety because they are being held by the police, they may not be able to breathe effectively,’ he adds.

What’s more, the measures surrounding the use of this bonnet vary from one police force to another.

In the RCMP, the bonnet is considered a restraint device. It is therefore not subject to the same requirements as tools that fall into the Intervention Options category, which includes pepper spray, for which there are strict training and recertification requirements.

Prohibited use

In Australia, the anti-spit mask has been abolished.

Alexander McClelland explains that Australia made this decision following the death of a man in custody. It’s because [the masks] can be damaging and cause a lot of harm to people who are arrested or incarcerated,’ says McClelland.

For its part, the RCMP says it has no intention of stopping using them, but that if objective medical evidence shows the tool to be dangerous, it will take it into account.

Le masque anti-crachat, un outil controversé

Des groupes de défense des droits de la personne qui ont créé le projet Tracking (In)Justice dénoncent l’utilisation du masque anti-crachat, alors que les corps de police tels que la Gendarmerie royale du Canada (GRC) le perçoivent comme un outil « essentiel ».

Ce masque, qui est mis sur la tête d’une personne en état d’arrestation qui veut cracher ou mordre les policiers, suscite la controverse. Le masque a été utilisé durant certaines interventions après lesquelles la personne arrêtée est morte,bien qu’aucun lien n’ait été formellement établi entre l’utilisation du masque et la mort de la personne.

Un outil utile et utilisé

Le service de police de Calgary a recours au masque anti-crachat.

Selon ses données (Nouvelle fenêtre) (en anglais), cet outil a été employé 70 fois en 2022 et en 2023, soit plus souvent que les aérosols capsiques (gaz poivre), mais moins que les armes à impulsion électrique.

Les membres de la GRC y ont aussi recours, mais son usage n’est pas systématiquement répertorié, car elle considère le masque comme un dispositif de contrainte, au même titre que des menottes, dit-elle dans un courriel envoyé à Radio-Canada

Selon la GRC, le masque permet d’éviter la contamination biologique de maladies et d’infections comme des hépatites et le VIH. Elle affirme que ce type de blessures est le plus fréquemment mentionné par les agents.

Une polémique

Le professeur agrégé de l’Institut de criminologie et de justice criminelle à l’Université Carleton à Ottawa Alexander McClelland estime que l’argument de la protection individuelle ne tient pas la route.

Nous ne connaissons pas beaucoup de maladies qui se transmettent uniquement par la salive. Par exemple, le VIH et l’hépatite C ne se transmettent pas par la salive. La COVID-19 est une maladie qui se transmet par l’air. Il faut donc un masque pour l’éviter, pas un tissu en maille, affirme le membre de Tracking (In)Justice, qui regroupe plusieurs organisations et qui collecte des données sur l’application de la loi et du droit pénal.

Alexander McClelland juge que le masque est un outil déshumanisant, qui n’a d’autre utilité que d’empêcher une personne d’envoyer des crachats, ce qui pourrait être évité par des mesures de désescalade.

Un outil dangereux?

Je sais qu’il y a eu environ neuf cas au Canada [entre 2014 et 2022] où des personnes sont mortes après l’utilisation de cagoules, affirme Alexander McClelland. Elles sont utilisées lorsqu’une personne est immobilisée de force sur le sol, qu’on lui applique une cagoule et qu’elle est aspergée de gaz poivré.

Or, la GRC est claire sur ce point : la cagoule ne doit pas servir à contrôler un prisonnier. À cet effet, elle cite des études qui démontrent que l’usage du masque, selon les indications du fabricant, est sécuritaire.

Toutefois, dans une note interne (Nouvelle fenêtre) (en anglais), Service de santé Alberta dit ceci : Les cagoules [anti-crachat] gênent l’évaluation et la gestion des voies respiratoires et présentent un risque considérable, par exemple si le patient vomit ou s’étouffe. L’agitation est aussi accrue par l’interférence avec la vision du patient.

Des mesures d’encadrement

Le masque est sécuritaire, si les agents suivent un protocole précis.

Ils sont censés être utilisés dans un contexte où aucun autre type de force n’est appliqué et lorsque la personne [à qui on enfile la cagoule] est assise et capable de respirer efficacement et normalement, assure Alexander McClelland.

Lorsqu’on applique d’autres types de force, comme la contrainte au sol, ou si quelqu’un est menotté, ou si quelqu’un est dans un état d’anxiété accru parce qu’il est retenu par la police, il peut ne pas être en mesure de respirer efficacement, ajoute-t-il.

De plus, les mesures entourant l’usage de cette cagoule varient selon les corps policiers.

À la GRC, la cagoule est considérée comme un dispositif de contrainte. Elle n’est donc pas soumise aux mêmes exigences que les outils qui entrent dans la catégorie Options d’intervention, dont fait partie l’aérosol capsique, pour laquelle il y a des exigences strictes en matière de formation et de recertification.

Un emploi proscrit

En Australie, le masque anti-crachat a été aboli.

Alexander McClelland explique que ce pays a fait ce choix à la suite du décès d’un homme en détention. C’est parce que [les masques] peuvent être dommageables et causer beaucoup de tort aux personnes arrêtées ou incarcérées, affirme le spécialiste.

De son côté, la GRC déclare qu’elle n’a pas l’intention d’arrêter de l’utiliser, mais que, si des preuves médicales objectives démontrent la dangerosité de l’outil, elle va en tenir compte.