US: Article (including quotes from Sero's Sean Strub) highlights how movement against HIV criminalisation is growing stronger in 2017

HIV Criminalization Is Detrimental to Public Health. It’s Time for the Law to Catch Up. By Matt Baume. Outward: Expanding the LGBTQ Conversation on Slate.com

It was in the summer of 2015 that then-23-year-old Michael Johnson was sentenced to thirty 30 years in prison for transmitting HIV. Since 1988, his home state of Missouri has imposed harsh penalties for what prosecutors call “reckless infection,” and it’s hardly alone: Most states have, at some time, prosecuted people for transmitting the virus. But those prosecutions may soon come to an end.

Laws that establish HIV-specific crimes date back to the dark years of the epidemic: “Everyone detected with AIDS should be tattooed in the upper forearm, to protect common-needle users,” wrote William F. Buckley Jr. in the New York Times in 1986, “and on the buttocks, to prevent the victimization of other homosexuals.” At the time, hysteria over AIDS produced a national wave of stigmatizing laws—laws that have now been shown to have worsened the epidemic.

“If people are so concerned with HIV transmission, then perhaps the Missouri legislature and Governor Nixon should start by repealing this law,” wrote Kenyon Farrow, the U.S. and global health policy director for the Treatment Action Group, in response to Michael Johnson’s prosecution.

Though it may seem appropriate to discourage HIV transmission, laws that create HIV-specific crimes “are unjust and harmful to public health around the world,” according to the Infectious Diseases Society of America. Rather than discouraging transmission, the laws actually discourage patients from seeking testing and care, which in turn leads to more transmissions. Numerous other public health experts and political leaders have called for an end to HIV prosecutions, including the American Medical Association, the National Association of County and City Health Officials, the U.S Conference of Mayors, and the Obama administration’s Department of Justice.

But reform comes slowly, and advocates for repeal have found themselves toiling for years to overturn the harmful statutes. Now, at last, a coordinated nationwide effort is taking shape, and 2017 is likely to see significant advances in the decriminalization of HIV.

“There’s two big shifts over the last five or six years,” said Sean Strub, executive director of the Sero Project, a group that advocates for repeal. “One, the people in the LGBT community … have an understanding of what HIV criminalization is. It’s a general awareness of the phenomenon in the communities most directly affected.” He estimates that his organization has had over a thousand speaking engagements in the last half-decade.

“Second: The issue is increasingly seen in public health terms,” he said. “To be fair, there wasn’t a lot of hard evidence [until recently]. We now know that 25 percent of people with HIV in the U.S. know one or more individuals who are afraid to get tested for HIV for fear of getting criminalized.” That statistic is based on a Sero Project survey of over 2,000 people, designed to determine how the partners of people with HIV access health care. Their findings indicate that criminalization has a public health impact beyond people who already have HIV.

Organizations like Sero Project have learned some valuable lessons over the last few years about harm reduction, and they’re now leveraging those best-practices in communities and legislatures around the country. Those strategies include coordinated educational efforts that simultaneously hit multiple communities: Faith, LGBTQ, public health, and legal. In addition, advocates are establishing local coalitions so that legislative pressure comes from constituents, rather than national groups. And they’re engaging with individual prosecutions around the country.

This year will see particularly intense focus in midwestern and southern states: Mississippi, Tennessee, Georgia, the Carolinas, Ohio, and Indiana will see intensive outreach efforts. California is making great strides, with a bill announced earlier this month to modernize the state’s laws. That effort has included a detailed study of prosecutions, with an analysis of demographic data that could become a model for modernization in other states.

Customized approaches are key to the approach in each state. In Florida, for example, advocates have reached out to members of the criminal justice system, from police officers all the way up to judges. Iowa’s decriminalization effort included a collaboration between hepatitis and HIV groups.

Another important evolution is how closely reform advocates are working with advocates for other forms of social change. “Whether it’s trans activists or drug policy people or sex work activists or Black Lives Matter or penal system reform, HIV decriminalization seems to be a nexus for those efforts,” said Strub. “It’s so closely tied to the criminalization of bodies. … Five or six years ago, other organizations were not involved in this work.”

At the national level, advocates are sponsoring a Congressional lobbying campaign in March. Top priorities include reforms to Army policy, as well as the creation of incentives for states to modernize their laws. (An old provision in the Ryan White CARE Act, a 1990 law that provided funding for HIV programs, prompted many states to impose criminalization in the first place.) The Repeal HIV Discrimination Act, sponsored by Barbara Lee (D-CA) and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), would provide a framework for state-by-state repeal—and although it’s languished since 2013, it will see a renewed push next month.

Among the states to watch: Missouri, home of Michael Johnson. The state is in the midst of an organizing effort that Strub estimates could take two or three years. Johnson’s conviction was recently overturned due to prosecutorial misconduct, and he’s been remanded for a retrial likely to happen sometime this year. That’s encouraging news, though Missouri Court of Appeals refused to rule on the constitutionality of the law under which Johnson was convicted.

As a result, Johnson and many others like him will remain tangled in a maze of trials, legislation, and lobbying efforts, trapped by misguided laws that impose preventable harm—for now.

Nigeria: On Zero Discrimination Day, Coalition of Lawyers for Human Rights strongly denounce judicial HIV stigma in ongoing child custody case (Press release)

Breach of HIV status confidentiality and discrimination by the Hon Justice Olagunju of the Oyo State Judiciary 

Federal Capital Territory, Abuja. March 1, 2017.

Coalition of Lawyers for Human Rights, COLaHR, is a Coalition of Human Rights Lawyers working on issues of Persons Living With, Affected By or Most at Risk of HIV.

COLaHR has been following and monitoring a case involving a mother living with HIV, which is being adjudicated upon before the Hon Justice Olagunju of Court 7 of the Oyo State High Court of Justice.

Our interest in the matter is basically to monitor how courts, in the dispensation of justice involving persons living with HIV, respect their confidentiality and possible traces of stigma and discrimination, in accessing justice.

COLaHR is concerned with the attitude of the Honourable Justice on all fronts in this regard. On the 20th of February 2017, while lawyers on both sides were delivering their final addresses, the presiding Judge, publicly made comments which publicly revealed the HIV status of the plaintiff. Not only was this wrong and a gross breach of confidentiality, the Judge also made comments obiter in the case of custody of the child, which exhibited gross stigmatisation and discrimination.

The Judge largely stated as follows:

“putting the interest of the child first, imagine the trauma that the little girl will pass through when the news of her mother being HIV-positive spreads across her school.”

The above quote, which was made in passing (obiter) and may not be included in the courts records, is patently discriminatory and coated with stigma. It betrays lack of appreciation of the prevailing HIV and AIDS laws at the federal and state levels. Several questions arise from Justice Olagunju’s statement:

  • What happens if both parents of the child are HIV-positive? Will such a child be handed over to foster parents?
  • Are we saying that persons with HIV in Nigeria are not fit for parenthood?
  • Should all HIV-positive adults therefore be sterilised?
  • Who will spread the news of Omolara being HIV-positive all over her daughter’s school?
  • Is the right to confidentiality of HIV status not guaranteed under Nigerian laws?

COLaHR makes the following findings from our monitoring of this case:

  1. The disposition of Hon. Justice Olagunju clearly casts doubt on the ability of the court not to be swayed by the Plaintiff’s health status in coming to a decision on the matter.
  1. The Plaintiff, in her statements to COLaHR has clearly shown the fear as in above, given her Husband’s request for custody of the child is hinged on HER HIV-POSITIVE STATUS.

It is in light of the above that COLaHR calls on Hon. Justice Olagunju to excuse himself from the case as justice must not only be done, but must be seen to have being done.

We call on the Chief Justice of the State, to direct Hon. Justice Olagunju to step down from the case.

We will in consonance with the law, share our findings with the Federal Attorney General and Minister of Justice and the State Attorney General respectively.

Signed

Roseline Oghenebrume,

National Coordinator, Coalition of Lawyers for Human Rights

Canada: Toronto’s ‘Now’ weekly newspaper prominently features HIV criminalisation impact, advocacy and advocates

This week, Toronto’s weekly newspaper, ‘Now’, features four articles on HIV criminalisation and its impact in Canada.

The lead article, ‘HIV is not a crime’ is written from the point of view of an HIV-negative person who discovers a sexual partner had not disclosed to him.  It concludes:

After my experience with non-disclosure, I felt some resentment. But while researching this article, I reached out to the person who didn’t disclose to me. We talked about the assumptions we’d both made about each other. It felt good to talk and air our grievances.

 

I realized I’d learned something I’d never heard from doctors during any of my dozens of trips to the STI clinic, something I’d never heard from my family, my school, in the media or from the government – that you don’t need to be afraid of people living with HIV.

Screenshot 2017-01-13 09.48.27A second article, Laws criminalizing HIV are putting vulnerable women at greater risk, highlights the impact HIV criminalisation is having on women in Canada, notably that it is preventing sexual assault survivors living with HIV from coming forward due to a fear they will be prosecuted for HIV non-disclosure (which, ironically, is treated as a more serious sexual assault than rape).

Moreover, treating HIV-positive women as sex offenders is subverting sexual assault laws designed to protect sexual autonomy and gender equality. Front-line workers and lawyers say they’re hearing from HIV-positive women who are afraid to report rape and domestic abuse for fear of being charged with aggravated sexual assault themselves.

 

“People come to me all the time who don’t know what to do,” says Cynthia Fromstein, a Toronto-based criminal lawyer who’s worked on 25 to 30 non-disclosure cases. “Canada, unfortunately, is virulent in its zeal to prosecute aggravated sexual assault related to HIV non-disclosure.”

Screenshot 2017-01-13 09.48.41It also features a strong editorial, ‘HIV disclosure double jeopardy’ by the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network’s Cecile Kazatchkine and HALCO’s Executive Director, Ryan Peck, which notes:

In a statement that mostly flew under the radar, Minister of Justice Jody Wilson-Raybould declared, on World AIDS Day (December 1), her government’s intention “to examine the criminal justice system’s response to non-disclosure of HIV status,” recognizing that “the over-criminalization of HIV non-disclosure discourages many individuals from being tested and seeking treatment, and further stigmatizes those living with HIV or AIDS.”

 

Wilson-Raybould also stated that  “the [Canadian] criminal justice system must adapt to better reflect the current scientific evidence on the realities of this disease.”

 

This long-overdue statement was the first from the government of Canada on this issue since 1998, the year the Supreme Court of Canada released its decision on R v. Cuerrier, the first case to reach the high court on the subject.

15937182_1055417094604635_6279465723502378214_oFinally, the magazine features a number of promiment HIV activists from Canada, including Alex McClelland, who is studying the impact of HIV criminalisation on people accused and/or convicted in Canada.

He contributed his first piece to HJN last month.

Canada: Ontario Court of Appeal rules that HIV disclosure by police in news releases does not violate a person's constitutional rights

Court ruling sets ‘low bar’ for police to disclose HIV status

Ontario Court of Appeal finds police didn’t violate suspect’s Charter rights by disclosing health status in news release

If a person charged with a crime is found to be HIV-positive, that could be enough for police to disclose that very personal and sensitive information to the public.

That’s one takeaway from an Ontario Court of Appeal decision that advocates say is cause for concern for those living with HIV or AIDS, which continue to attract stigma and misunderstanding despite evolving science.

The province’s top court overturned a lower court decision last week, ruling that that Durham Regional Police did not breach former youth pastor Kris Gowdy’s constitutional rights following his 2012 arrest for Internet child luring when they disclosed in a news release that he was HIV-positive.

Gowdy was arrested after arriving at the home of someone who had been posing as a 15-year-old boy online, to perform oral sex, only to discover the individual was a police officer. Police searched his car and discovered documentation and medication proving he was HIV-positive. The arrest and Gowdy’s HIV status were widely reported on at the time, making international headlines.

Writing for a unanimous three-judge panel, Justice David Watt said the police force’s actions in disclosing Gowdy’s HIV status were “clearly in retrospect not advisable.”

But the judges held that the release of that information did not violate Gowdy’s right to security of the person because there had been no finding at trial that the disclosure had a psychological effect on Gowdy beyond the impact already caused by the charge he was facing.

They also concluded that provincial privacy legislation contains an exemption for municipal institutions to release personal information that they have lawfully gathered if it is for a “consistent purpose.”

In this case, Watt said that the “consistent purpose” was to further the investigation “by inviting responses from other sexual partners of Gowdy” who may be at risk of transmission.

“The police had reasonable suspicion; reasonable grounds to believe further offences had been committed was not required for the purpose of the media release,” Watt said.

The court dismissed Gowdy’s appeal of the conviction, but allowed the Crown’s appeal. The court substituted Gowdy’s two-year conditional sentence, which he served at home, with a one-year jail term, although it said he should not be re-arrested because he had already served his sentence.

As noted by the Court of Appeal, the lead investigator in the case did not seek legal advice or the permission of the police chief or his designate before issuing the news release, did not seek medical advice to find out the likelihood of transmission of the virus through a sexual activity such as fellatio, and did not seek to confirm Gowdy’s assertion that his medication had rendered his viral load so low that it made transmission unlikely.

Gowdy also never admitted in his interview with police that he had had sexual contact with individuals who were unaware of his HIV status, the court said.

“The lead investigator testified that, to his knowledge, he had never before investigated someone with HIV in his 23 years of policing,” Watt wrote. “The investigating officer acknowledged he did not consider the Charter rights of Kris Gowdy before requesting the media release.”

Richard Elliott, executive director of the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network, one of the interveners in the appeal, said in an interview with the Star that police should have turned their minds to what the actual risks of transmission may have been in this case.

“I can’t think what that ‘reasonable suspicion’ is actually founded on. I don’t think the suspicion is a reasonable one, all the information the officer had was that this accused was HIV-positive,” Elliott said.

“This is a case in which merely finding out someone has HIV was seen by police as sufficient for putting out a press release, basically engaging in a fishing expedition.”

He also described the court’s interpretation of the “consistent purpose” exemption as “very, very liberal,” saying it sets an “extraordinarily low bar” that police have to clear before releasing a person’s HIV status.

The case highlights what advocates say is a lack of proper training for officers in dealing with HIV-positive individuals and the absence of clear statutes governing the disclosure of such information by police.

Durham police spokesman Dave Selby declined to comment on the court’s decision.

“In general, I can say that we regularly review our policies to ensure they are consistent with all applicable laws and judicial decisions. We will review this decision carefully, as well,” he said in an email. “We will continue to respect the fundamental privacy rights of all citizens while balancing our community safety responsibilities.”

Gowdy’s appeal lawyer, Russell Silverstein, said his client is considering whether to seek leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.

“When it comes to one’s HIV status, different considerations apply, it’s not the same as telling the world that the accused is suffering from cancer or some other disease,” he told the Star.

“You can’t say that the release of such information is per se a Charter breach, it’s going to depend on the circumstances, and the question is: what should the appropriate test be for the disclosure of that particular information?”

A former pastor with the Free Methodist Church of Canada, Gowdy posted an ad on Craigslist in 2012 looking for men interested in receiving oral sex, specifying he was looking for “under 35, jocks, college guys, skaters, young married guy.”

A detective with the OPP’s Child Sexual Exploitation Section homed in on the use of the words “young,” “skater,” and “under 35” in Gowdy’s ad, and began an online conversation with him, posing as a 15-year-old boy.

Shortly after agreeing to meet the “boy” for oral sex, Gowdy was arrested. He maintained in court that he never actually believed the person he was conversing with was 15 years old.

Gowdy, a former pastor with the Free Methodist Church of Canada, had kept his sexual orientation secret from his family and church, his 2014 trial heard. He had no prior criminal record and there were no complaints about inappropriate behaviour from the ministries where he had worked as a pastor.

“I regret incredibly my actions, they were foolish and inappropriate,” Gowdy told the Star in an interview in 2014. “It feels to me like there should be some kind of reprimand to these officers at the minimum.”

At trial, Justice Michael Block found that the release of Gowdy’s HIV status violated his constitutional rights. He circumvented the mandatory minimum sentence of one year in jail for the luring offence, and instead imposed a two-year conditional sentence, which Gowdy served at home. Gowdy’s name was to remain on the sexual offender registry for 20 years.

“Mr. Gowdy had a right to make his own choices concerning the disclosure of his HIV status,” Block said. “No doubt he would have chosen his own method and different timing if he ever determined to inform those near to him. Absent evidence of serious risk of transmission and rigorous compliance with statute, no one had the authority to make that decision for him.”

Russia: Lawmakers in the Altai Krai region unanimously agree to support a law to allow for mandatory HIV testing AND treatment

English version – Translation (For Russian version, please scroll down)

The Provincial Parliament’s legislative initiative will be sent to the State Duma as a draft federal law

BARNAUL, December 15. Deputies of the Legislative Assembly of the Altai Krai took the initiative to take on the federal law on compulsory treatment of people diagnosed with HIV. They decided to send a proposal to the State Duma as a session of the regional parliament adopted it, reports the press service of the Legislative Assembly.

“The Provincial Parliament will send to the State Duma a legislative initiative of the draft federal law” On Amendments to the Federal Law “On Prevention of Spread of the disease caused by HIV.” For example, citizens suffering from social diseases, which constitute a danger to others (tuberculosis), are subject to mandatory laboratory examination and medical observation or treatment and compulsory hospitalization or isolation in the manner prescribed by the law. The initiative involves the Altai Deputies to extend these norms to HIV-infected patients”, – said the press service.

They added that all 66 deputies unanimously supported the initiative to amend the Law. “The adjustment of the law is to allow professionals, as appropriate, provide forced treatment and monitoring of HIV-infected people to avoid the spread of the virus,” – explained the Legislative Assembly.

According to the press service, the medical check-up and treatment of HIV-infected people in Russia is fulfilled at the expense of the federal subsidies and intergovernmental transfers of the RF federal budget entities to ensure the procurement of antiviral drugs. “Thus, additional funding for coverage of medical observation and treatment of patients with HIV infection is not needed” – added the Legislative Assembly of the Altai Territory.

For most of the Altai Territory, the issue of HIV is relevant: according to the Regional AIDS Centre, for the past 10 years in the region, the number of people diagnosed with HIV has doubled to more over 24 thousand people. Now in the region 217 children and more than 3 thousand adults get treatment. According to official data of Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation, totally 824 thousand HIV cases are registered in Russia. The average therapy coverage nationally is about 40%.

Краевой парламент в порядке законодательной инициативы направит в Госдуму проект соответствующего федерального закона

БАРНАУЛ, 15 декабря. /Корр. ТАСС Ксения Шубина/. Депутаты Алтайского краевого Законодательного собрания выступили с инициативой принять на федеральном уровне закон о принудительном лечении людей с диагнозом ВИЧ. Решение направить такое предложение в Госдуму было принято на сессии регионального парламента, сообщили в пресс-службе Заксобрания.

“Краевой парламент направит в Госдуму в порядке законодательной инициативы проект федерального закона “О внесении изменений в Федеральный закон “О предупреждении распространения в Российской Федерации заболевания, вызываемого ВИЧ”. К примеру, граждане, страдающие социально значимыми заболеваниями, представляющими опасность для окружающих (туберкулез), в обязательном порядке подлежат лабораторному обследованию и медицинскому наблюдению или лечению и обязательной госпитализации или изоляции в порядке, установленном законодательством РФ. Инициатива алтайских депутатов предполагает распространить эти нормы и на ВИЧ-инфицированных больных”, – сказали в пресс-службе.

Там добавили, что все 66 депутатов единогласно поддержали инициативу о внесении изменений в ФЗ. “Корректировка закона должна позволить специалистам, в случае необходимости, проводить лечение и наблюдение за ВИЧ-инфицированными в принудительном порядке, чтобы избежать распространения вируса”, – пояснили в Заксобрании.

По данным пресс-службы, диспансерное наблюдение и лечение ВИЧ-инфицированных в России осуществляется за счет федеральных субсидий и межбюджетных трансфертов федерального бюджета субъектам РФ на обеспечение закупок антивирусных препаратов. “Таким образом, дополнительного финансирования на охват диспансерным наблюдением и лечением больных ВИЧ-инфекцией не потребуется”, – добавили в Заксобрании Алтайского края.

Для самого Алтайского края тема борьбы с ВИЧ актуальна: по данным регионального Центра СПИД, за последние 10 лет в регионе количество людей с выявленным диагнозом ВИЧ увеличилось в два раза – до более чем 24 тыс. человек. Сейчас в регионе получают лечение 217 детей и более 3 тыс. взрослых. По официальным данным Минздрава РФ, всего в России зарегистрировано 824 тыс. случаев ВИЧ-инфекции. Охват терапией в среднем по стране – около 40%.

Originally published in TASS

[Press release] Activists call on leaders to protect human rights and stop imposing criminal sanctions against people living with HIV and TB

INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS DAY 2016, 10 DECEMBER 2016:

Windhoek, Namibia, 09 December 2016: On the eve of International Human Rights Day 2016, the AIDS and Rights Alliance for Southern Africa (ARASA), a partnership of 106 organisations working in 18 countries in southern and east Africa, calls on governments to curb the increasing trend of enacting and enforcing incoherent, ineffective laws that undermine human rights, including the right to health, and threaten to derail the progress made to end the twin epidemics of HIV and TB.

ARASA warns that the commitments made towards eliminating HIV and TB – including the 2016 Political Declaration on HIV and AIDS, the Sustainable Development Goals and the End TB strategy – stand on shaky foundations, unless they are supported by a human rights-based approach, including strong political will and coherence between law and science.

Although there has been some improvement in ensuring access to treatment and care for people living with HIV and TB, there is a still a long way to go in terms of aligning HIV, TB and human rights.

“We cannot talk about the 90-90-90 targets without addressing the endemic human rights barriers, underpinned by the criminalisation of key population groups, including sex workers, people who use drugs, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) people, people living with disabilities, and women. In addition, the current proliferation of HIV-specific criminal laws, which unjustly target people living with a treatable disease, are eroding the gains made in the HIV and TB responses,” said Michaela Clayton, Director of the ARASA.

The Advancing HIV Justice 2 report, published in June 2016 by the HIV Justice Worldwide partnership, of which ARASA is a member, highlights that, since 2000, 30 sub-Saharan African countries have now enacted overly broad laws related to the criminalisation of HIV transmission, exposure and non-disclosure.The Report also notes that the rise of reported prosecutions in Africa (in Botswana, South Africa, Uganda, and especially Zimbabwe), along with the continuing, growing number of HIV criminalisation laws on this continent, is especially alarming.

“It’s ironic that HIV criminalisation began in sub-Saharan Africa just as the commitment to HIV treatment scale-up was envisioned at the Durban 2000 AIDS Conference,” says the report’s author, Edwin J Bernard, Global Co-ordinator of the HIV Justice Network. “These laws were not based on evidence but political expediency – the vision of ‘ending AIDS’ is totally incompatible with criminalising people living with HIV.”

 

“In the course of the Southern Africal Litigation Centre’s work, we continue to observe significant stigma and discrimination against people living with HIV and key populations, including through inappropriate applications of criminal laws, and unhealthy, inhumane conditions of detention in southern Africa. An effective HIV and TB-response demands that governments urgently reform legal environments that enable these abuses, and advance meaningful access to justice and accountability for victims of rights violations,” said Kaajal Ramjathan-Keogh, Executive Director of the Southern Africa Litigation Centre (SALC).

 

Advocates around the world are working tirelessly to ensure that the criminal law’s approach to people living with HIV is consistent with up-to-date science, as well as key legal and human rights principles. But, unless investments are matched with clear programmatic articulation of human rights based approaches – essential for people living with HIV and TB and members of key and other vulnerable populations groups who currently have little or no access HIV and TB prevention, treatment, care, and support services – then the current rhetoric about the end of HIV and reduction of TB prevalence rates, will remain purely academic.

“Disclosure of HIV happens with support, with counselling and with an enablement. This is not the reality in the places where an average person seeks health services. HIV criminalisation goes against HIV prevention”, said Dora Kiconco Musinguzi, The Executive Director of the Uganda Network on Law, Ethics and HIV/AIDS (UGANET),

who have been petitioning against the Ugandan government for the amendment of the potentially harmful provisions of the HIV/AIDS control and Prevention Act 2015 which includes allowing for the disclosure of a person’s HIV-positive status, either forcefully, at the discretion of a health worker or at a’ concerned person’s’ request.

The evidence is in and the future is looking bleak: ARASA’s 2016 HIV, TB and Human Rights in Southern and East Africa (SEA) Report, which conducts scans of the legal and regulatory framework for responding to HIV, TB and sexual reproductive health (SRH) in SEA to determine whether laws, regulations and policies protect and promote the rights of all people, including key populations, continues to show that while these laws are meant to protect and promote the rights of all people, they are instead used against the most vulnerable people in our societies, not only moving them away from essential health services, but criminalising their rights to health and life.

This, while shocking figures released by the World Health Organisation in October 2016, show an estimated 10.4 million new TB cases and 1.8 million TB deaths in 2015, are a case in point. This is a 20% revision upwards from last year’s figures, showing that the TB epidemic is a bigger problem than we thought. There is no TB elimination scenario that is realistic without improved prevention.

Our conventional approaches to dealing with TB need to be revisited. As eloquently stated by Honourable Michael Kirby, a Member of the United Nations Secretary-General’s High–Level Panel on Access to Essential Medicines, in his Ten commandments for TB, TB requires rights-based approaches, and a revisiting of the ineffective hostile, punitive approaches, involuntary treatment and incarceration that have been levelled against people living with TB.

ARASA recommends that civil society and governments should work together to:

1.     Advocate to expand access to legal services for people with HIV and key populations and provide information about available legal services.

2.     Remove all overly broad and HIV-specific laws that criminalise HIV transmission, exposure and non-disclosure and criminalisation laws related to sex work, people who use drugs and gender identity for LGBTI.

3.     Expand HIV programming that is acceptable and accessible for LGBTI people, through LGBTI-friendly services.

4.     Advocate for legislation that explicitly criminalises marital rape and set a minimum age for marriage and access to Post Exposure Prophylaxis for Gender-Based Violence (GBV) survivors.

5.     Repeal laws that undermine or prohibit distribution of condoms and lubricants in prisons, including laws that criminalise sex between men in prisons

Matthew Weait, from the University of Portsmouth, writes on how stigma and the law affect the lives of people with HIV

HIV Stigma and the Criminal Law

December 1st marks World AIDS Day, an opportunity for people worldwide to unite in the fight against HIV, show their support for people living with HIV and to commemorate people who have died. Matthew Weait, from the University of Portsmouth, writes here on how stigma and the law affect the lives of people with HIV.

Today, December 1st, is World AIDS Day.  According to the latest available data from UNAIDS, 1.1 million people died from AIDS-related causes in 2015, there are just over 2 million new HIV infections globally every year, and just under 40 million people are living with the virus.  These are depressing figures, particularly in light of the advances in our understanding of HIV, its prevention and treatment, the laudable rise in the number of people accessing antiretroviral therapy (ART) (up from 7.5 million to 18 million in the past five years), and the massive impact of ART on reducing the likelihood of onward transmission.

Despite the fact that the life expectancy of people on ART has improved significantly, especially for those who receive a timely diagnosis, and that there exist effective ways of avoiding infection, the stigma associated with HIV remains.  The impact of this stigma, and the associated discrimination which people living with HIV (PLHIV) and those in key populations are subjected to, is substantial and undermines the work being done to promote access to health and other services critical to curtailing the epidemic.

Stigma is not only correlated with adverse health outcomes for PLHIV (including depression and lower adherence to medication), but also with non-disclosure of status and with less safe sexual practices.  It is for these reasons that combating stigma, and the factors which contribute to it, has long been identified as a public health priority.

Among the most pernicious contributors to HIV stigma is the widespread and inappropriate use of criminal laws against PLHIV and those at heightened risk of infection.  For example, PLHIV or those suspected of being HIV-positive have been and are at risk of being investigated, prosecuted and imprisoned for exposure offences – where no transmission takes place – even where there is negligible risk (as when a PLHIV is on effective treatment and has an undetectable viral load), where there is no risk (e.g. through biting or spitting), and even where a partner has consented to the risk involved.

In some countries, such as Canada, the very fact of non-disclosure of status can, irrespective of risk, turn otherwise consensual sex into sexual assault.  And where transmission does in fact occur (which is more likely when someone does not know their status and is not on treatment than when they do know and are), PLHIV are at risk of extended custodial punishment, even if it is not their intention to cause harm.

These laws serve no public health purpose and, because it is typically only those that have a positive diagnosis who may be found criminally liable, do nothing to incentivise the testing which is a pre-requisite of treatment and care.

It is not only those already living with HIV who suffer from the enforcement of punitive laws.  The social opprobrium associated with and / or criminalization of transgender people, homosexuality, sex work, and injecting drug use in many countries of the world (including nations with high HIV prevalence) reinforces stigma, makes it harder to support those at heightened risk of acquiring the virus, and in fact makes infection more likely.

If the possession of condoms is treated as evidence of sex work, sex workers may not carry them; and if the possession of syringes is treated as evidence of drug use, the chance that these will be shared increases, as does the risk of transmitting blood-borne viruses (including HIV and hepatitis C).  Put simply, the policing of these communities, and the absence of harm reduction opportunities in the carceral settings they may find themselves in as a result of that policing, exacerbate risks which are already greater than for the general population.

The adverse impact of using criminal law in the fight against HIV, and on those directly and indirectly affected by it, has been extensively researched and documented.  The consensus among expert bodies such as UNAIDS and the Global Commission on HIV and the Law is that countries should review their punitive laws and significantly restrict their use, and there have been a number of progressive and welcome developments both in law reform and in policing, many of these led by coalitions of activists and clinicians.  At the same time, and despite the evidence of the harm that they cause, and the stigma which it feeds and sustains, countries continue to pass and enforce these laws.

Irrespective of any moral or ethical questions there may be about HIV transmission, exposure, or non-disclosure, it is incontrovertible that the criminal law makes the elimination of HIV harder.  If we are going to end the epidemic, this needs to be recognised and acted on as a priority. If not, more people will become infected, more people will get sick, more people will have a lower quality of life – even when virally suppressed – and more people will die.

Published in BioMed Central on Dec 1, 2016

Uganda: 5 months after filing their initial petition, activists renew their call to amend HIV law

Activists renew call for HIV law amendment

By Noah Jagwe

They argue that the law contains clauses that could deter all the benefits in the fight against the scourge.

According to this group, the law instead instills fear in communities about HIV disclosure and also fuels stigmatization.

Earlier this year, some 60 civil society organizations across the country challenged the criminalization of HIVin Uganda as well as other ‘harmful’ provisions in the Act.

Dora Kichoncho Musinguzi, the executive director Uganda Network on Law and Ethics, said the salient features that are scanned out in the law which they consider discriminatory are: Clauses 21, 41 and 43 of the Act that seek to criminalize HIV, particularly intentional transmission.

The Act would require mandatory disclosure of one’s HIV status, failure of which would be regarded as “criminal”, and attempting to or, intentionally transmitting the virus.

Failure to use a condom where one knows their HIV status would constitute a criminal offence, making them liable for prosecution.

The provisions in the HIV Act, according to Kichonco, do not only stigmatize and discriminate against people living with HIV, but also deter communities from seeking HIV services such as HIV testing and subsequently HIV treatment.

“It is five months since we filed the petition. The government has not responded to our case. This is procedurally wrong and negates justice,” she said.

Kichoncho said if the law continues “as we could see”, it would heighten stigmatization of people living with HIV and that many of the targets such as 90% of people knowing their status, 90% of those who with HIV are on treatment and 90% with suppressed  viral load set by the country might not be achieved.

“The law has been counterproductive to all the achievements Uganda has made.”

She said the legal environment in Uganda is not conducive and human rights have not been respected. “Laws that criminalize and stigmatize people with HIV must be repealed.”

Meanwhile, Dorothy Nassolo, communications officer of Forum of People Living with HIV/Aids Networks in Uganda said there is a crisis the country might not stand.

She said a number of patients have been hacked to death because they have been discovered by their spouses for taking ARVs covertly.

National Forum of People Living with HIV/AIDS officer Milly Katana said the most affected group by the law are women through gender-based violence at home.

Katana said it’s better for Uganda to look at other alternatives for instance biomedical tools, medical male circumcision and condoms. –

Published in New Vision on Dec 1, 2016

Russia: European Court of Human Rights rules that Russia must compensate a Ukrainian woman deported based on her HIV status

English version – Translation (For Russian version, please scroll down)

European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ruled Russia to pay 15,000 euros compensation to a Ukrainian citizen for her family separation due to her HIV status.

Lawyer Irina Khrunova, representing the interests of the applicant, stated that the court found Russia was guilty of violating the right to respect for family life and of excessive interference in a person’s private life.

Khrunova said her client had lived in Russia since the early 2000s and met her future husband there. When in 2012 a woman was traveling from Ukraine to Sochi, the border officers did not let her into the country, citing the ruling of Rospotrebnadzor came into effect on undesirability of stay HIV-positive non-citizens in Russia.

The Ukrainian’s appeal against this decision had failed in Russian courts.

Европейский суд по правам человека (ЕСПЧ) обязал Россию выплатить 15 тысяч евро компенсации гражданке Украины, разлученной с семьей из-за ВИЧ.

Адвокат Ирина Хрунова, представляющая интересы заявительницы, сообщила, что суд признал правительство России виновным в нарушении статьи об уважении семейной жизни и излишнем вмешательстве в личную жизнь человека.

Хрунова рассказала, что ее подзащитная жила в России с начала 2000-х годов и познакомилась здесь со своим будущим мужем. Когда в 2012 году женщина ехала из Украины в Сочи, пограничники не пустили ее в страну, сославшись на вступившее в силу постановление Роспотребнадзора о нежелательности пребывания в России ВИЧ-положительных неграждан.

Обжаловать это решение в российских судах украинке не удалось.

Originally published in Radio Svoboda