US: New Williams Institute analysis shows HIV criminalization disproportionately targets Black communities

Black Americans are disproportionately criminalized for living with HIV.

Through “heightened surveillance, arrest, and conviction,” Black Americans are more likely to be criminalized for their HIV.

Black people in the U.S. aren’t just more likely to have HIV — they’re more likely to be criminalized for it.

Black Americans accounted for about 38 percent of new HIV diagnoses and 39 percent of people living with HIV in 2023, according to a report from the Williams Institute, despite making up around 12 percent of the population.

Black women had the highest HIV diagnosis rate at 19.6 per 100,000, which is about 11 times the rate for white women at 1.8 per 100,000. Black boys and men ages 13 to 24 accounted for 47 percent of all new diagnoses among youth, while white boys and men made up just three percent.

Even with higher rates of infection, Black Americans are less likely to be on medications that treat HIV, with just 64 percent receiving care and 53 percent virally suppressed. They are also less likely to have health insurance, as 12.3 percent of Black adults ages 19 to 64 did not have health insurance in 2024, compared to 6.8 percent of white adults.

Black Americans are more likely to be criminalized for their HIV as well, as they are often subjected to “heightened surveillance, arrest, and conviction within the criminal legal system,” according to the report. In 64 percent of states analyzed, they faced higher rates of arrest than their share of people living with HIV. For example, Black people in California were 6 percent of the state population and 18 percent of people living with HIV, but 39 percent of HIV-related arrests.

They’re also more likely to face harsh post-conviction penalties like sex offender registration. In Tennessee, Black people were 17 percent of the state’s population and 55 percent of people living with HIV, but 74 percent of people on the sex offender registry with an HIV-related conviction.

“Most HIV criminal laws were enacted before effective HIV treatment and prevention tools became widely available,” said Nathan Cisneros, director of the HIV Criminalization Project at the Williams Institute. “In recent years, there has been a push to reform or repeal these laws as policymakers and the public increasingly recognize that these laws can discourage testing, increase stigma, and deepen disparities — especially for Black Americans.”

Canada: Google refuses to suppress name-based search results in dismissed HIV criminalisation case

Google wants to keep HIV status of underage Canadian in search results

Canada’s data protection authority wants to enforce a version of the “right to be forgotten” that is reduced to a specific risk. Google is not playing along.

Google refuses to accept the Canadian version of the“right to be forgotten“, even though it is significantly reduced and better protected against abuse than the European version. Google’s refusal poses a problem for the monarchy’s weak data protection authority. The starting point of the dispute is media reports found via Google’s search engine about the arrest and prosecution of an HIV-positive, underage person, probably over a decade ago.

The person was once accused of not disclosing their HIV status prior to sexual contact. Canadian media reported on this, citing the person’s full name and sexual orientation. The data protection authority does not consider the reports to be a violation of the law.

However, the charges against the minor were quickly dropped because the results of the investigation showed that the person had never posed a risk to the health of others. Canada’s federal prosecutor generally does not prosecute cases where there was no realistic risk of infection. But if you enter the person’s name into Google’s search engine, you will still find the media reports about the arrest and charges for the alleged sexual offense at the top.

The consequences for the person are dire: physical attacks, difficulties finding work, social ostracism. She would like hyperlinks to outdated media reports to no longer appear in Google’s search results when her name is entered. When Google refused, the complainant turned to the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada in 2017.

Years of dispute over jurisdiction

The Office opened proceedings, but Google claimed that the authority was not allowed to investigate the search engine. It was used for journalistic purposes, for which the Canadian federal data protection law PEPIDA provides an exception. The authority went to court and won a declaration at both first (2021) and second instance (2023) that “every part” of the search engine is covered by the Canadian federal privacy law PEPIDA, especially as the search does not exclusively serve journalistic purposes.

Nevertheless, Google still refuses to suppress the hyperlinks to the media reports when a person’s name is entered. The authority is by no means demanding that the media reports be deleted from the index altogether. They may continue to be linked when other search terms are entered, but this should no longer happen when the name of the person concerned is entered. To this end, the data protection authority refers to a central rubber paragraph of the law (PEPIDA paragraph 5 section 3): “An organization may collect, use or disclose personal information only for purposes that a reasonable person would consider are appropriate in the circumstances.” (E.g.: Organizations may collect, use and disclose personal information only for purposes that a reasonable person would consider appropriate in the circumstances).

Personal protection vs public interest

Under certain limited conditions, it follows that search results may be unlawful: If the search results are likely to cause significant harm to an individual, and this outweighs the public interest in the search results when the individual’s name is entered.

In this particular case, this public interest, if any, was low because the person in question was not a person of public interest and the media reports revolved around highly sensitive information about private life, not public activities or working life. Furthermore, the charges were quickly suspended; according to current guidelines, they would hardly ever have been brought.

Although there is public discourse about criminal sanctions for undisclosed HIV status, the public can find the specific media reports via thematic search terms; the ability to find them via a person’s name does not contribute significantly to the discourse.

Most of the linked articles would report incompletely and misleadingly, as they do not mention the subsequent resting of the charges. They also fail to mention the federal and provincial guidelines for not pressing charges without risk of infection. Without this context, readers could gain a false impression, which could seriously harm the person named. In general, the articles were published many years ago, which also reduces the public interest in linking to them.

Infringement remains without consequences

By continuing to disseminate the links after entering the person’s name, Google permanently violated the cited legal provision. However, the Canadian Federal Data Protection Agency can neither impose fines nor impose conditions; it is limited to recommendations. Google does not want to implement these.

“Individuals have the right under Canadian privacy law to have information about themselves removed from online search results after entering their name in certain circumstances where there is a significant risk of harm that outweighs the public interest in that information being made available through such a search,” says Canada’s Privacy Commissioner Philippe Dufresne. His authority will “consider all available options to ensure Google’s compliance with the law.” What this will look like remains to be seen.

Comparison with Europe

The Canadian data protection authority’s access to a “right to be forgotten” has the advantage over the European model of less potential for abuse. Legal web content is not to be deleted from the search index as a matter of principle; rather, the focus is on protecting those affected. Anyone searching specifically for such content should not be able to easily find content that is dangerous for those affected, while other search terms will continue to lead to the target. The fact that a person’s name is also listed there has little effect on people who are largely unknown.

In the European model, the webpage as a whole is regularly filtered out of the search results, regardless of the search term. This leads to abuse if user comments are published on the same webpage. Anyone who doesn’t like a media report, for example, writes a “drunk” post underneath it. The poster is soon “embarrassed”, which is why he requests the search engines to suppress the webpage. The search engines have to obey. The operators of the affected website never find out about the delisting, which the European “affected party” has enforced without a court ruling.

New global data reveals rising HIV criminalisation amid stalling legal reforms

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

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

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

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

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

                 Download the poster by clicking on the image

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Mexico: HIV criminalisation in Tamaulipas fuels fear and discrimination

Activists in Tamaulipas denounce that criminalisation of HIV is an obstacle to health and human rights

Translated with Deepl. For original article in Spanish, please scroll down.

Cd. Victoria, Tamaulipas.- People living with HIV in the state of Tamaulipas face not only the challenge of their health condition, but also the threat of criminalisation. Furthermore, Article 203 of the state penal code allows anyone to report another person for ‘risk of contagion’, which generates fear, discrimination and hinders prevention and early detection efforts.
Celso Pérez Ruiz, president of the civil association ‘Tendremos Alas’ (We Will Have Wings), denounced that this legislation discourages citizens from getting tested for HIV, as the fear of being singled out and prosecuted outweighs the need to know their health status.
‘In Tamaulipas, people living with HIV continue to be criminalised, and the current policy of prevention and early detection cannot move forward precisely because there is a law that criminalises them; so who is going to want to get tested for HIV under the fear of being reported if they test positive?’
He recalled that despite the fact that the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation and the National Human Rights Commission have declared the law unconstitutional, the state has refused to repeal it.
In the last legislative session, Morena deputy Magaly de Andar presented an initiative to eliminate this article, but in her current term she has not followed up on it, leaving thousands of Tamaulipas residents in a situation of legal vulnerability.
This is not just a legal issue, it is a human rights issue. The criminalisation of HIV perpetuates stigma, alienates those living with HIV from health services and prevents them from exercising their right to a dignified life free from discrimination. It is time for Tamaulipas to move towards fairer and more humane legislation.
‘Article 203 of the Tamaulipas state criminal code criminalises people living with HIV, regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity. All Tamaulipas residents living with the virus are under the premise that they can be reported by anyone for the risk of contagion,’ said Celso Pérez Ruiz.

Cd. Victoria, Tamaulipas.- En el estado de Tamaulipas viven con VIH enfrentan no solo el desafío de su condición de salud, sino también la amenaza de criminalización; además, el artículo 203 del código penal estatal permite que cualquier persona denuncie a otra por «peligro de contagio», lo que genera miedo, discriminación y obstaculiza los esfuerzos de prevención y detección oportuna.
Celso Pérez Ruiz, presidente de la asociación civil “Tendremos Alas”, denunció que esta legislación disuade a los ciudadanos de hacerse pruebas de VIH, pues el temor a ser señalados y perseguidos legalmente pesa más que la necesidad de conocer su estado de salud.
“En Tamaulipas se sigue criminalizando a las personas que viven con VIH, y la actual política de prevención y detección oportuna no puede avanzar precisamente porque hay una ley que criminaliza; entonces qué persona va a querer hacerse una prueba de VIH bajo el temor de que sea boletinada en caso de dar positivo”.
Recordó que a pesar de que la Suprema Corte de Justicia de la Nación y la Comisión Nacional de los Derechos Humanos han declarado la norma como inconstitucional, el estado se ha resistido a derogarla.
En la pasada legislatura, la diputada de Morena Magaly de Andar presentó una iniciativa para eliminar este artículo, pero en su actual gestión no le ha dado seguimiento, dejando a miles de tamaulipecos en una situación de vulnerabilidad legal.
Este no es solo un tema legal, es una cuestión de derechos humanos. La criminalización del VIH perpetúa el estigma, aleja a quienes lo viven de los servicios de salud y les impide ejercer su derecho a una vida digna y libre de discriminación. Es hora de que Tamaulipas avance hacia una legislación más justa y humana.
“El artículo 203 del código penal del estado de Tamaulipas criminaliza a las personas que viven con VIH, más allá de su orientación sexual o de identidad de género. Todos los tamaulipecos que vivan con el virus están bajo la premisa de que pueden ser denunciados por peligro de contagio por cualquier persona”, refirió Celso Pérez Ruiz.

Angola: Angola set to introduce new legislation against HIV/AIDS discrimination

Translated from Portuguese with Google translate. Scroll down for original article.

The National Institute for the Fight Against AIDS assures that the country will soon know a new legislation on the discrimination of people living with AIDS.

According to the Deputy Director General of the Institute, José Carlos Van-Dúnem, the bill is already in the Angolan parliament.

Meanwhile, tomorrow, March 1, the world marks the day of the zero discrimination project for people living with AIDS.

The National Institute for the Fight against AIDS will make the carnival party a time to widely disseminate the UNAIDS recommendation.

Angola vai em breve conhecer uma nova legislação sobre a discriminação da pessoa vivendo com sida

O Instituto Nacional da Luta Contra a SIDA, assegura que o país vai em breve conhecer uma nova legislação sobre a discriminação da pessoa vivendo com SIDA.

De acordo com o Director Geral Adjunto do Instituto, José Carlos Van-Dúnem, a proposta de lei já está no parlamento angolano.

Enquanto isso, amanhã, 1 de março, o mundo assinala o dia do projecto zero discriminação da pessoa vivendo com SIDA.

O Instituto Nacional de Luta contra a SIDA, vai fazer da festa do carnaval momento para divulgar em grande a recomendação da ONU-SIDA.

Spain: Landmark ruling in Spain recognises HIV-based discrimination for the first time

Groundbreaking ruling in Spain recognises HIV discrimination

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

  • Cesida, the Legal Clinic of the University of Alcalá and the Fernando Pombo Foundation have achieved an important ruling that recognises for the first time discrimination based on the HIV status of a person.
  • The legal standing in court of social organisations such as CESIDA paves the way for greater protection of the rights of vulnerable people.

Cesida (the Spanish HIV/AIDS Coordinating Committee), the Legal Clinic of the University of Alcalá and the Fernando Pombo Foundation have obtained a pioneering court ruling on equality and non-discrimination based on HIV status in Spain. The case concerned discrimination suffered by a person with HIV in the administrative sphere. Specifically, a resolution of the Directorate General of Traffic (DGT) has been declared null and void on the grounds that it was discriminatory, as it reduced the validity of a citizen’s driving licence by half solely because he or she is living with HIV, without any justification and without following the established procedure.

The Citizens’ Anti-AIDS Commission of Navarre has accompanied “Pedro” throughout the process, providing support and advice from the outset. Their work, like that of other organisations that work directly with people with HIV, is essential to guarantee the defence of the rights of people with HIV and to offer the necessary support in these situations of discrimination. At CESIDA we would like to thank them for their commitment and that of all the organisations that fight against stigma and inequality every day.

Active legitimisation of social organisations

The case shows how social organisations such as CESIDA can better defend people in vulnerable situations under Law 15/2022 of 12 July, which is comprehensive for equal treatment and non-discrimination.

Oliver Marcos, general secretary of CESIDA, declared: ‘This ruling is a crucial step in the defence of the rights of people with HIV. There is still much to be done, but we are firmly committed to continuing to fight against the stigmatisation and discrimination suffered by people with HIV in our society.’

The active legitimisation of social organisations is a key channel for those who, due to their vulnerable situation, do not want to or cannot appear in a judicial process. Social organisations assume their legal representation by exercising their right to effective judicial protection without the affected person having to be part of the process, their authorisation being sufficient. In this way, the role of the third sector is reinforced when the organisations have among their aims the defence and promotion of human rights, without extending the scope to abstract or media defences without real content.

In this case, the person who felt that their right to equal treatment had been violated consulted the DGT’s decision with CESIDA. Three students, tutored by two professors, from the Legal Clinic of the University of Alcalá, which has collaborated with CESIDA for many years, considered that this could be a case of direct discrimination based on serological status. The Legal Clinic of the UAH then contacted the Fernando Pombo Foundation, which promotes and coordinates pro bono legal advice projects to improve the rule of law. The Fernando Pombo Foundation considered that this was a strategic issue for the achievement of its aims and also involved a team of pro bono lawyers from the law firm Gómez-Acebo & Pombo, and together they planned the legal strategy.

Ana Higuera, director of the Fernando Pombo Foundation, emphasises that ‘for us, participating in the defence of this case has been a stimulus for our mission. The admission of the claim by CESIDA, without the need for individual visibility of the person with HIV, represents a key advance in the legal approach to avoiding discrimination that, although not always visible, is real. Furthermore, the judgement’s analysis of how the discrimination occurred is clear and direct, which I consider essential to raise awareness of real situations of discrimination and differentiate them from others in which differential treatment is appropriate. In this sense, I believe that the judgement is educational and useful’.

This is one of the first cases in which, in accordance with Law 15/2022, the legitimacy of an association constituted for the purpose of defending human rights is recognised to combat a situation of discrimination in the field of public law.

The sentence: discrimination based on serological status in the renewal of a driving licence

On 24 October 2022, the DGT (Directorate General of Traffic) informed Pedro (not his real name) that his driving licence had been renewed for half the normal period (5 years instead of 10) and the only apparent reason was that he had disclosed during the medical check-up that he had HIV and was taking the corresponding antiretroviral treatment, without this affecting his ability to drive in any way.

Although the limitation on renewal may not be very relevant, the interest of the case lies in the recurrence with which situations similar to this one occur every day in the lives of people with HIV, who continue to be stigmatised despite advances in the treatment and prevention of transmission of the virus thanks to the efficacy and safety of antiretroviral drugs. Faced with this decision by the DGT, Pedro authorised CESIDA to lodge an appeal, which was possible thanks to the provisions of article 29 of Law 15/2022, which introduces the active legitimation of social entities with certain requirements.

Once the evidence had been presented and the arguments put forward by the team of pro bono lawyers from the law firm Gómez-Acebo & Pombo defending CESIDA’s claim, the Administrative Court ruled in favour of CESIDA and annulled the DGT’s decision on the grounds that it was discriminatory. This ruling is a pioneering pronouncement in our country. It literally says:

‘But discrimination occurs in several ways. The applicant is discriminated against when the procedure established in article 44.3 of the General Drivers Regulations is not followed. The applicant is discriminated against when, on appeal, the provision established in section 13 of Annex IV itself is not taken into account, according to which ‘except if the interested party accompanies a favourable medical opinion’, a report that appears on page 10 of the administrative file indicating that ‘the influence of Dovato on the ability to drive and use machines is nil or insignificant (see technical data sheet)’. The applicant is discriminated against when the decision adopted is a flat-out one, as evidenced by the fact that the administrative file begins with the applicant’s complaint, which is classified as an appeal, with no record of any previous action.

The renewal applicant is treated differently, as the established general rule (renewal for a period of ten years) does not apply to him. It is done because he is HIV positive, without any justification and without following the procedure that, in any case, would be established for this purpose.’

After the sentence was handed down, the DGT has already sent Pedro his new driving licence for the general period, without exceptions, having also notified the finality of the sentence a few days ago.

A precedent against discrimination based on serological status

Miguel Ángel Ramiro, coordinator of the Legal Clinic of the University of Alcalá, emphasised that ‘This case sets an important precedent in Spain as it is a pioneering ruling against discrimination based on HIV status, as well as for the recognition of the standing of social organisations’. And he added: ‘The participation of our students in this process has been key. Not only have they learned about applicable legal norms and procedural issues, but they have also contributed to the fight for equality and social justice, a fundamental aspect in the training of future professionals.’

Oliver Marcos, general secretary of Cesida, emphasised: ‘We encourage people with HIV to turn to associations when they feel their rights have been violated, showing that in this way changes are achieved. In addition, we place special emphasis on the fact that public administrations should be the guarantors of equality and avoid this type of discrimination in any area within their competence.’

Sentencia pionera en España reconoce la discriminación por el VIH

  • Cesida, la Clínica Legal de la Universidad de Alcalá y la Fundación Fernando Pombo logran una importante sentencia que reconoce por primera vez la discriminación por razón del estado serológico de una persona con el VIH.
  • La legitimación activa ante los tribunales de entidades sociales como CESIDA abre el camino a una mayor protección de los derechos de las personas en situación de vulnerabilidad.

Cesida (Coordinadora Estatal de VIH y sida), la Clínica Legal de la Universidad de Alcalá y la Fundación Fernando Pombo han obtenido un pronunciamiento judicial pionero en materia de igualdad y no discriminación por razón del estado serológico en España. El proceso ha enjuiciado la discriminación sufrida por una persona con el VIH en el ámbito administrativo. En concreto, se ha declarado la nulidad de una resolución de la Dirección General de Tráfico (DGT) por entender que la misma era discriminatoria ya que reducía la vigencia del permiso de conducción de un ciudadano a la mitad únicamente porque vive con el VIH, sin motivación alguna y con ausencia del procedimiento que, en todo caso, está establecido para ello.

La Comisión Ciudadana Antisida de Navarra ha acompañado a «Pedro» durante todo el proceso, brindándole apoyo y asesoramiento desde el primer momento. Su labor, al igual que la de otras entidades que trabajan directamente con personas con el VIH, es esencial para garantizar la defensa de los derechos de las personas con el VIH y ofrecer el respaldo necesario ante estas situaciones de discriminación. Desde CESIDA queremos agradecer su compromiso y el de todas las organizaciones que día a día luchan contra el estigma y la desigualdad.

Legitimación activa de las entidades sociales

El caso muestra cómo las organizaciones del ámbito social como CESIDA pueden defender mejor a personas en situación de vulnerabilidad en virtud de la Ley 15/2022, de 12 de julio, integral para la igualdad de trato y la no discriminación.

Oliver Marcos, secretario general de CESIDA, declaró: “Esta sentencia es un paso crucial en la defensa de los derechos de las personas con el VIH. Aún queda mucho por hacer, pero tenemos el firme compromiso de seguir luchando contra la estigmatización y la discriminación que sufrimos las personas con la infección por el VIH en nuestra sociedad.”

La legitimación activa de las entidades sociales resulta una vía clave para aquellas personas que por estar en una situación de vulnerabilidad no quieren o no pueden personarse en un proceso judicial. Las organizaciones sociales asumen su representación legal ejerciendo su derecho a la tutela judicial efectiva sin que la persona afectada tenga que formar parte del proceso, bastando su autorización. De este modo, se refuerza el papel del tercer sector cuando las organizaciones tengan entre sus fines la defensa y promoción de los derechos humanos, sin que se amplíen los ámbitos a defensas abstractas o mediáticas sin contenido real.

En este caso, la persona que sintió vulnerado su derecho a la igualdad de trato consultó con CESIDA la decisión de la DGT. Tres estudiantes, tutorizados por dos profesores, de la Clínica Legal de la Universidad de Alcalá, que colabora desde hace muchos años con CESIDA, consideraron que podría tratarse de un supuesto de discriminación directa por razón del estado serológico. La Clínica Legal de la UAH contactó entonces con la Fundación Fernando Pombo, que impulsa y coordina proyectos de asesoramiento jurídico pro bono para mejorar el Estado de Derecho. La Fundación Fernando Pombo consideró que se trataba de un tema estratégico para la consecución de sus fines e involucró también un equipo de abogados pro bono del despacho Gómez-Acebo & Pombo, y juntos planificaron la estrategia jurídica.

Ana Higuera, directora de la Fundación Fernando Pombo, destaca que “para nosotros participar en la defensa de este caso ha sido un estímulo para nuestra misión. La admisión de la reclamación por CESIDA, sin necesidad de una visibilidad individual de la persona con el VIH, representa un avance clave en el enfoque jurídico para evitar discriminaciones que, aunque no siempre son visibles, son reales. Además, el análisis que realiza la sentencia sobre cómo se ha producido la discriminación es claro y directo, lo que considero fundamental para concienciar sobre situaciones reales de discriminación y diferenciarlas de otras en las que el trato diferenciado es adecuado. En este sentido, creo que la sentencia es pedagógica y útil”.

Se trata de uno de los primeros casos que, conforme a la Ley 15/2022, se reconoce la legitimación de una asociación constituida con el fin de defender los derechos humanos para combatir una situación de discriminación en el ámbito del Derecho público.

La sentencia: discriminación por estado serológico en la renovación del permiso de conducir

El 24 de octubre de 2022 la DGT comunicó a Pedro (nombre ficticio) la renovación de su permiso de conducción reducida a la mitad de tiempo (5 años en lugar de 10) y la única razón aparente fue que éste comunicó en la revisión médica que tenía el VIH y tomaba el correspondiente tratamiento antirretroviral, sin que esto afectará en modo alguno a su capacidad de conducir.

Aunque la limitación de la renovación pudiera resultar poco relevante, el interés del caso está en la recurrencia con que situaciones similares a ésta se producen todos los días en la vida de las personas con el VIH, que siguen siendo estigmatizadas a pesar de los avances en el tratamiento y la prevención de la transmisión del virus gracias a la eficacia y seguridad de los fármacos antirretrovirales. Ante esta decisión de la DGT, Pedro autorizó a CESIDA a interponer un recurso contencioso-administrativo, lo que pudo hacerse gracias a la previsión del artículo 29 de la Ley 15/2022 que introduce la legitimación activa de las entidades sociales con ciertos requisitos.

Una vez practicada la prueba y expuestos los argumentos por el equipo de abogados pro bono del despacho Gómez-Acebo & Pombo que defendían la pretensión de CESIDA, el Juzgado de lo contencioso-administrativo falló en favor de CESIDA y ha anulado la resolución de la DGT por entender que la misma es discriminatoria. Esta sentencia es un pronunciamiento pionero en nuestro país. Textualmente dice:

“Pero es que la discriminación se produce de varias maneras. Se discrimina al solicitante al no seguirse el procedimiento establecido en el artículo 44.3 del Reglamento General de Conductores. Se discrimina al solicitante cuando en vía de recurso no se tiene en cuenta la previsión establecida en el propio apartado 13 del Anexo IV conforme a la que “excepto si el interesado acompaña un dictamen facultativo favorable”, informe que consta en el folio 10 del expediente administrativo en el que se indica que “la influencia del Dovato sobre la capacidad de conducir y utilizar máquinas es nula o insignificante (consultar ficha técnica)”. Se discrimina al solicitante cuando la decisión adoptada lo es de plano, como acredita el que el expediente administrativo se inicia con la reclamación del solicitante que se califica como recurso de alzada, sin que conste ninguna actuación previa.

Se trata de forma diferente al solicitante de la renovación, al que no se aplica la norma general establecida (renovación por plazo de diez años), se hace por su condición de seropositivo, sin motivación alguna y con ausencia del procedimiento que, en todo caso, estaría establecido para ello.”

Después de recibirse la sentencia, la DGT ya ha enviado a Pedro su nuevo permiso de conducir por el período general, sin excepciones, habiéndose, además notificado la firmeza de la sentencia hace unos días.

Un precedente contra la discriminación por razón del estado serológico

Miguel Ángel Ramiro, coordinador de la Clínica Legal de la Universidad de Alcalá, recalcó “Este caso sienta un precedente importante en España al ser un pronunciamiento pionero contra la discriminación por razón del estado serológico; así como para el reconocimiento de la legitimación activa de las entidades sociales”. Y añadió: “La participación de nuestros estudiantes en este proceso ha sido clave. No solo han aprendido sobre normas jurídicas aplicables y cuestiones procedimentales, sino que también han contribuido a la lucha por la igualdad y la justicia social, un aspecto fundamental en la formación de futuros profesionales.”

Oliver Marcos, secretario general de Cesida, enfatizó: “Animamos a las personas con el VIH a acudir a las asociaciones cuando sientan vulnerados sus derechos, evidenciando que de esta manera se logran cambios. Además, hacemos especial hincapié en que las administraciones públicas deben ser las garantes de la igualdad y evitar este tipo de discriminación en cualquier ámbito de su competencia.”

Death penalty for unintentional HIV transmission via same-sex sex struck down by Uganda’s Constitutional Court

The recent (April 3rd) ruling by Uganda’s Constitutional Court declaring that the Anti Homosexuality Act of 2023 complies with the Constitution of Uganda – except in only four aspects – was quite rightly roundly condemned by Amnesty International, the Global Fund, Human Rights Watch, International AIDS Society, and UNAIDS, as well as the US Department of State, amongst many others.

Rather than strike down every section of this heinous, draconian anti-gay law, the Court was unanimous in ruling that most of its dangerous, overly broad, and problematic provisions remain in place. 

However, in its 200+ page ruling, the Court did find that Sections 3(2)(c), 9, 11(2d) and 14 did not “pass constitutional muster” and were struck down.

Sections 9 and 11(2d) refer to landlords allowing homosexuality to take place on their premises, and section 14 refers to a “duty to report acts of homosexuality” to the police.

But section 3(2)(c) was one of the most heinous of all of the Act’s horrendous provisions, proscribing the death penalty for someone living with HIV who engaged in same-sex sex and where HIV is allegedly passed on.

  1. Aggravated homosexuality (1) A person who commits the offence of homosexuality in any of the circumstances specified in subsection (2) commits the offence of aggravated homosexuality and is liable, on conviction, to suffer death. (2) (c) the person against whom the offence is committed contracts a terminal illness as a result of the sexual act.

Read the full text of the law here

Both the Court, several petitioners, and UNAIDS – who provided an amicus brief to the Court – correctly interpreted this section as criminalising unintentional HIV transmission when two people of the same sex had sex.

In paragraphs 510-512, the Court referred to several key documents – including the 2011 Report of the Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health and UNAIDS 2013 Guidance Note, Ending overly broad criminalisation of HIV non-disclosure, exposure and transmission: Critical scientific, medical and legal considerations – and were persuaded that the section did not provide for “the element of criminal intent or mens rea, which is a vital component of the concept of crime.”

The Constitutional Court ruling went on to say:

“This indeed is the approach that was adopted in section 43 of the HIV and AIDS Prevention and Control Act, 2015, which criminalizes the intentional transmission of HIV as follows: ‘a person who wilfully and intentionally transmits HIV to another person commits an offence.’

“Finding no justification for the criminalization of the unintentional transmission of HIV under section 3(2)(c) of the Anti-Homosexuality Act we take the view that it compounds the susceptibility of persons that are HIV+ to mental health issues and thus impedes their right to enjoy the highest attainable standard of mental health, with potential ramifications to their physical health as well. This is a violation of the right to health as envisaged under Article 12(1) of the ICESCR and is inconsistent with Articles 45 and 287 of the Uganda Constitution.”

 

However, people living with HIV are already over-criminalised in Uganda by various sections of the HIV and AIDS Prevention and Control Act, as summarised in our Global HIV Criminalisation Database.

What is termed as “wilful and intentional” transmission of HIV is punishable by a fine and/or up to ten years’ imprisonment. Section 43 provides a defence if the accused’s partner was aware of, and accepted, the risk of transmission, or transmission occurred during sexual intercourse and protective measures were used. Attempted transmission is punishable by a fine and/or up to five years’ imprisonment. The scope of section 41 is undefined, but cases demonstrate that the law criminalises perceived HIV ‘exposure’ broadly.

Both Section 41 and 43 are known to have been used in a broad range of circumstances, including prosecution of a man for ‘defilement’ (2013), prosecution of a teacher for alleged transmission to his student (2013), the alleged injection of a toddler/needle stick injury (2014), alleged transmission by a woman to a number of young men (2014), alleged breastfeeding of an employer’s child (2018), the arrest, conviction and acquittal of a nurse wrongfully convicted of injecting a baby with HIV-infected blood (2018), and the alleged defilement of a boy by a woman (2019). An earlier prosecution from 2008 involved a man charged with alleged transmission. In the most recent case in 2023, a woman living with HIV pled guilty to charges under section 43 after injecting her 5-year-old son with her blood and was sentenced to seven years’ imprisonment. Cases have generally not used scientific evidence to prove allegations, with convictions at lower-level courts relying only on testimony.

Nevertheless, the recognition of key legal and rights-based arguments against punishing unintentional HIV transmission with the death penalty(!) as part of an otherwise anti-rights, morality-based ruling should be seen as a small but welcome victory. Although this might be seen as similar to the 2022 Lesotho High Court decision on the unconstitutionality of the death penalty in the context of HIV transmission following rape, the difference of course is that that rape is an act of violence that should be criminalised regardless of any other circumstances, whereas consensual sex between two men or two women should never, ever be a crime.

US: New report published on the enforcement of HIV criminalisation in Ohio

‘Antiquated’ and unscientific laws enforced against Ohioans living with HIV: Report

Across the country, a growing coalition of advocates is pushing to repeal or update state laws that criminalize people living with HIV or AIDS.

In Ohio, six laws on the books either criminalize certain acts – including sex – for people living with HIV or substantially increase sentences for them compared to people who do not have the virus.

Most of the laws were passed decades ago, fueled by fear, absent scientific understanding about how HIV is transmitted and before advancements in HIV-related treatment were widely introduced. Laws still remain in place in 34 states.

There are no national reporting requirements that track arrests or prosecutions under the laws. Until now, it was unclear how frequently Ohio prosecutors have charged people under the laws, which also apply to people living with hepatitis or tuberculosis.

A report released today by Equality Ohio and the Ohio Health Modernization Movement (OHMM), two groups pushing for legal reform, reveals that more than half of the prosecutions over a six-year period were for acts – such as spitting or throwing bodily fluids – that were unlikely to transmit HIV. It also found a disproportionate number of people charged were Black compared to Ohio’s overall population of Black residents.

“Ohio is unique in that these antiquated laws are actually being utilized and enforced against everyday Ohioans who are living with HIV,” Kate Mozynski, an attorney with Equality Ohio and one of the co-authors of the report told the Buckeye Flame.

In 2022, about 25,000 people in Ohio had an HIV diagnosis. The rate of Black residents diagnosed with HIV was more than six times the rate of white residents.

The groups spent three years gathering information from prosecutors and courts in all 88 Ohio counties and identified 214 cases charged under the six laws. Often, the records lacked or had conflicting information on race or ethnicity, and the gender captured in law enforcement records didn’t always reflect a person’s gender identity.

That prevents researchers from fully understanding the impact that these laws are having on some of the most vulnerable populations in Ohio, including LQBTQ+ people, people experiencing incarceration and people of color, according to the report. The federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has warned that laws criminalizing HIV exposure are outdated and may discourage testing, increase stigma and exacerbate disparities in Black and Latino communities.

Cuyahoga County had the highest number of charges

 The report found that:

  • Prosecutions are concentrated in Ohio’s more populous counties, including Cuyahoga, Hamilton, Franklin and Lucas counties.
  • Cuyahoga County charged four times the number of people under the six laws than Franklin County, which has a higher population and more people living with HIV and AIDS. Cuyahoga County accounted for 26% of the cases identified.
  • The largest share of prosecutions involved Black men, based on recorded race and gender included in records.

A separate Marshall Project review of prosecutions under the six laws in Cuyahoga County from 2016 through 2022 examined 36 charges involving 35 defendants. That doesn’t didn’t include charges for solicitation, prostitution or loitering, which are generally misdemeanor crimes.

The cases involved 18 law enforcement agencies, including three hospital police departments and public transit police.

The Cuyahoga County Prosecutor’s office, which decides whether to prosecute felony cases under Ohio’s laws, said these charges are determined on a “case-by-case basis” after considering input from victims, according to Lexi Bauer, communications manager. Bauer noted that the majority of the “harassment by bodily fluid” charges in recent years were related to hepatitis and not HIV.

Ohio penalties among the harshest

Ohio’s laws remain among the harshest when it comes to HIV criminalization, not just based on the conduct that is criminalized but also the penalties, said Jada Hicks, staff attorney for The Center for HIV Law and Policy.

In Ohio, people living with HIV (or viral hepatitis or tuberculosis) can be charged whether or not they:

  • Engaged in sex practices or other acts that could transmit the virus.
  • Transmitted HIV.
  • Used protection, such as condoms and/or dental dams.
  • Had an undetectable level of virus in their blood and were unable to transmit HIV.

Most of the charges examined in the report fall under two Ohio laws.

One law makes it a crime for a person living with HIV (or hepatitis or tuberculosis) to “harass” someone with their bodily fluids. That would include spitting or throwing urine, feces or blood at another person.

Under the other law, a person can be charged with felonious assault if they have sex with another person without telling them that they are living with HIV.

The penalties for failing to disclose HIV status in Ohio are stiff regardless of whether the virus was actually transmitted or whether it was even possible for a person to transmit the virus. Possible sentences for individuals living with HIV can be anywhere from two to 29 times longer than those for Ohioans who are HIV-negative.

Ohio is also one of six states that require individuals convicted under one of these statutes to register as a sex offender.

“Ohio’s HIV laws don’t require actual transmission or even the intent to transmit,” said Nathan Cisneros, a researcher with the Williams Institute, which does legal and public policy research on sexual orientation and gender identity. “Conduct that couldn’t transmit HIV – like spitting and biting, loitering while having a conversation about sex work – can land you in prison.”

The Williams Institute also published a report today that looked at arrests under Ohio’s six laws over two decades and felony prosecutions in Cuyahoga County from 2009 to 2022. Researchers identified at least 530 separate allegations under the six laws since 2000. Having consensual sex without disclosing an HIV-positive status made up nearly half of the total cases. Incidents related to sex work and bodily fluid exposure each accounted for nearly one-fifth of the total.

Changing legal landscape

Thirteen states have either repealed or modernized their HIV laws, according to the Center for HIV Law and Policy, including Illinois in 2021 and New Jersey in 2022.

Ohio advocates have been at the forefront of efforts to challenge the laws as discriminatory. In 2022, the Center for HIV Law and Policy filed a complaint with the Department of Justice on behalf of people living with HIV in Ohio and Tennessee.

In December, the DOJ notified Tennessee it was violating the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by enforcing the state law that increases penalties for people convicted of prostitution if they also have HIV. On Feb. 15, the Justice Department filed charges against the state in federal court..

Combing state records for HIV-related charges

OHMM researchers gathered information from county-level online court records and local county clerk and prosecutors’ offices in Ohio’s 88 counties for a six-year period ending in 2020. The project identified 214 cases prosecuted under the six laws.

Behind each one of the cases, there is a “real, everyday Ohioan who happens to have a medical condition,” Mozynski said.

Where in Ohio are people being charged?

The highest concentration of charges are in the state’s larger metropolitan areas.

  • 26% in Cuyahoga County (Cleveland)
  • 12% in Hamilton County (Cincinnati)
  • 7% in Lucas County (Toledo)
  • 7% in Franklin County (Columbus)
  • Montgomery (Dayton) and Warren (Lebanon) counties, about 5% each.

What charges are most common?

More than half of the cases identified were for the charge of “harassment with a bodily substance,” which carries with it a penalty of up to 5 years in prison and a $10,000 fine. Cases with this charge are often related to acts against law enforcement or corrections officers or healthcare workers.

Charges don’t distinguish between bodily fluids that can transmit HIV, such as blood, and those that do not, such as saliva, urine or feces. People can also be charged if they are living with hepatitis, regardless of whether it is transmitted.

Prosecutors also don’t have to prove whether a person is capable of transmitting the virus or determine whether it is scientifically impossible to transmit the virusdue to prescription-drug treatments that have reduced the presence of the virus in a person’s blood – called a viral load – to undetectable levels.

A third of the cases were for “felonious assault,” which carries the most severe penalty of any HIV-related charge – up to eight years of incarceration and a $15,000 fine. Each sexual act can be charged separately. It also doesn’t require that the virus be transmitted.

OHMM found no cases where people were charged with “selling or donating contaminated blood.” The Williams Institute found six arrests over a 20 year period related to blood donation.

Read the OHMM (“Enforcement of HIV Criminalization in Ohio: Analysis of Court Cases from 2014 to 2020”) report here.

Read the Williams report (“Enforcement of HIV Criminalization in Ohio HIV-related criminal incidents from 2000 to 2022”) here.

US: Report by the Williams Institute examines the enforcement of HIV criminalisation laws in Mississippi

HIV criminal laws lopsided impact on Black men in Mississippi

A new report by the Williams Institute at UCLA School of Law finds that at least 43 people in Mississippi were arrested for HIV-related crimes between 2004 and 2021. Half of all arrests in the state happened between 2017 and 2021.

The HIV epidemic and Mississippi’s HIV-related criminal laws disproportionately impact men, and Black men in particular. Men make up 49% of Mississippi’s population, 71% of people living with HIV (PLWH), and 72% of HIV-related arrests. Black men comprise 18% of the state’s population and 50% of PLWH. However, they make up 47% of HIV-related arrests.

Researchers analyzed data obtained from the Mississippi Department of Public Safety. Findings show that the enforcement of HIV criminal laws is concentrated around the state’s capital and most populous city, Jackson, and near the Gulf Coast. Almost 20% of arrests occurred in three counties: Harrison (15%), Hinds (13%), and Lamar (11%).

HIV criminalization is a term used to describe laws that either criminalize otherwise legal conduct or increase the penalties for illegal conduct based on a person’s HIV-positive status. Nearly two-thirds of U.S. states and territories currently have laws that criminalize people living with HIV.

Mississippi has two HIV criminal laws. The knowing exposure law makes it a felony to knowingly expose another person to HIV, hepatitis B, or hepatitis C and is punishable by up to 10 years in prison and/or a $10,000 fine. Mississippi’s endangerment by bodily substance law makes it a misdemeanor to attempt to expose or expose anyone at a correctional facility to bodily fluids. However, if someone knows their HIV or hepatitis status, the crime is upgraded to a felony punishable by 3 to 10 years in prison and/or a $10,000 fine.

“Mississippi’s criminal laws do not require the actual transmission of HIV, the intent to transmit, or even conduct that can lead to the transmission of HIV,” said lead study author Nathan Cisneros, HIV Criminalization Project Director at the Williams Institute. “We now have medical treatments that wholly eliminate the risk of transmitting HIV through sex, yet these advances are not reflected in Mississippi’s laws.”

Mississippi’s 2021 Ending the HIV Epidemic Plan called for reform of the state’s HIV criminal laws to align with modern HIV medicine.

“HIV criminal laws perpetuate stigma and can discourage testing and treatment,” said co-author Brad Sears, Founding Executive Director at the Williams Institute. “That’s why many national and state organizations, including the American Medical Association, have called for a repeal of these laws.”

This report is part of a series of reports examining the ongoing impact of state HIV criminalization laws on people living with HIV.

Read the report