Global: ‘Where HIV is a crime, not just a virus’ – updated Top 20 table and video presentation now online

Where HIV Is a Crime, Not Just a Virus from HIV Action on Vimeo.

Here is my presentation providing a global overview of laws and prosecutions at the XVIII International AIDS Conference, Vienna, on 22 July 2010.

Abstract: Where HIV is a crime, not just a virus: a global ranking of prosecutions for HIV non-disclosure, exposure and transmission.

Issues: The global (mis)use of the criminal law to control and punish the behaviour of PLHIV was highlighted at AIDS 2008, where Justice Edwin Cameron called for “a campaign against criminalisation”. However advocacy on this vitally important issue is in its infancy, hampered by lack of information on a local, national and international level.

Description: A global overview of prosecutions to December 2009, based on data from GNP+ Global Criminalisation Scan (http://criminalisation.gnpplus.net); media reports collated on criminalhivtransmission.blogspot.com and WHO Europe pilot human rights audit. Top 20 ranking is based on the ratio of rate per year/per HIV population.

Lessons learned: Prosecutions for non-intentional HIV exposure and transmission continue unabated. More than 60 countries have prosecuted HIV exposure or transmission and/or have HIV-specific laws that allow for prosecutions. At least eight countries enacted new HIV-specific laws in 2008/9; new laws are proposed in 15 countries or jurisdictions; 23 countries actively prosecuted PLHIV in 2008/9.

Next steps: PLHIV networks and civil society, in partnership with public sector, donor, multilateral and UN agencies, must invest in understanding the drivers and impact of criminalisation, and work pragmatically with criminal justice system/lawmakers to reduce its harm.

Video produced by www.georgetownmedia.de

 

This table reflects amended data for Sweden provided by Andreas Berglöf of HIV Sweden after the conference, relegating Sweden from 3rd to 4th. Its laws, including the forced disclosure of HIV-positive status, remain some of the most draconian in the world. Click here to download pdf.

How could she go on living as if weren’t there [Trailer] (Sweden, 2010)

It is 1986. Lillemor is 19 And goes to France. She falls in love there; a love which results in her becoming HIV infected. Lillemor represses the fact that she has a lethal infection. She gets married and has children. She cannot bring herself to tell her husband that she is HIV positive. One day he finds out. Tabloid press and tv channels refer to her as the “HIV woman”. Lillemor’s husband divorces her, she loses custody of their children, and she loses her freedom.

Lillemor has now served a 30-month prison sentence for attempted grievous bodily harm. She was convicted for having had unprotected sex with her husband and for having gone through pregnancy and given birth to two children without first informing medical staff of the fact that she was HIV positive. Neither her ex-husband nor their children, now 7 and 8 years old, have contracted HIV.

This full length (73 minute) feature documentary is a stunning, heartbreaking exposition of how the stigma of HIV leads to Lillemor’s functional denial and ultimately her criminalisation, prosecution, conviction and incarceration.

PRODUCER/DIRECTOR INGELA LEKFALK
CINEMATOGRAPHY ANDERS BOHMAN STEFAN LARSSON
EDITING KERSTI GRUNDITZ
MUSIC LOUISE HOFFSTEIN
LARS PAULIN  LASSE ENGLUND  PETER KVINT
CHRISTOFFER DEMBY RESEARCH JENNY SJUNNESSON

More information: http://lekfalkab.se/eng/film_hurkundehon.html and at IMDB

 

Edwin J Bernard: Where HIV Is a Crime, Not Just a Virus (AIDS 2010)

Edwin J Bernard presents a global overview of laws and prosecutions at the XVIII International AIDS Conference, Vienna, 22 July 2010.

Abstract: Where HIV is a crime, not just a virus: a global ranking of prosecutions for HIV non-disclosure, exposure and transmission.

Issues: The global (mis)use of the criminal law to control and punish the behaviour of PLHIV was highlighted at AIDS 2008, where Justice Edwin Cameron called for “a campaign against criminalisation”. However advocacy on this vitally important issue is in its infancy, hampered by lack of information on a local, national and international level.

Description: A global overview of prosecutions to December 2009, based on data from GNP+ Global Criminalisation Scan (criminalisation.gnpplus.net); media reports collated on criminalhivtransmission.blogspot.com and WHO Europe pilot human rights audit. Top 20 ranking is based on the ratio of rate per year/per HIV population.

Lessons learned: Prosecutions for non-intentional HIV exposure and transmission continue unabated. More than 60 countries have prosecuted HIV exposure or transmission and/or have HIV-specific laws that allow for prosecutions. At least eight countries enacted new HIV-specific laws in 2008/9; new laws are proposed in 15 countries or jurisdictions; 23 countries actively prosecuted PLHIV in 2008/9.

Next steps: PLHIV networks and civil society, in partnership with public sector, donor, multilateral and UN agencies, must invest in understanding the drivers and impact of criminalisation, and work pragmatically with criminal justice system/lawmakers to reduce its harm.

Video produced by georgetownmedia.de

US: Nushawn Williams “poster child” of newly proposed HIV-specific law faces a lifetime of civil confinement (update 2)

Update: July 20th
A New York Supreme Court judge in Buffalo has dismissed Nushawn Williams’s petition for release and ruled he could remain in jail while awaiting his October trial under New York’s Civil Confinement Law.

Update: May 11th
No big surprise, but a New York State Supreme Court judge has ruled that Nushawn Williams “poses a danger to society and as a result, must remain behind bars even though his sentence is complete.”

State Supreme Court Justice John Michalski said there is probable cause that Williams suffers from a “sexual abnormality” that would pose a danger to society.

With the ruling, Williams could now face a trial to determine his future status.

Both sides are due back in court next month as they hold arguments over a defense motion to dismiss the case.

Under a civil law, passed in 2007, the state can lock up a sex offender indefinitely if it proves the person has a mental abnormality and is likely to offend again.

Original post: April 23rd

The impact of the 1997 Nushawn Williams case continues to reverberate in New York. Following last year’s denied request for parole, there are now plans to keep him locked up forever by New York’s Attorney General Andrew M. Cuomo.

The New York Times reported on April 13th

Mr. Williams, 33, was due to be released on Tuesday after serving his maximum sentence of 12 years, but Mr. Cuomo’s office is seeking to keep him in custody under a three-year-old state law that permits the civil confinement of sex offenders. Last Friday, a state judge in Buffalo, near where Mr. Williams has been jailed, ordered that he remain in custody pending the outcome of a civil confinement proceeding.

Now, State Senator Cathy Young of Olean is not only urging Cuomo to keep Williams in civil confinement but also proposing a new HIV-specific law for New York using Williams as a “poster child”. Back in February 2009, Suffolk County District Attorney Thomas Spota teamed up with Parents for Megan’s Law to advocate for the same thing.

Here is Senator Young’s press release, featuring her proposed law in full.

Senator Cathy Young (R,I,C – Olean) today renewed her call for a law making it a crime to knowingly spread the deadly HIV/AIDS virus to other unsuspecting people. Senator Young’s announcement comes in the wake of news that Nushawn Williams, the man who caused an AIDS epidemic in Chautauqua County in the 1990s, had completed his prison sentence and could be released to the public.

Senator Young also called on New York State Attorney General Andrew Cuomo to rigorously fight to ensure that Williams remains confined in a psychiatric facility and is not let back out into the community.

“People who knowingly use HIV/AIDS as a deadly weapon by purposely exposing others to the disease should be severely punished. This proposed law would provide the appropriate penalties for those who callously put other people’s lives in jeopardy, and will help further prevent the transmission of HIV/AIDS by keeping victims and prison supervisors informed when inmates test positive for the virus.”

State Attorney General Andrew Cuomo has announced that he is seeking, under New York’s Sex Offender Management Act, to have Williams confined in a state-operated psychiatric facility.

Senator Young said, “Nushawn Williams is the poster child for why we need a civil confinement law in New York State. I urge Attorney General Cuomo to do everything in his power to ensure that Williams remains confined. This deadly predator must not be returned to society.”

Senator Young’s legislation would create the crimes of reckless endangerment of the public health in the 1st and 2nd degrees for people who test positive for HIV/AIDS and then recklessly engage in conduct which results in transmission of HIV/AIDS to another unsuspecting person or puts that person at substantial risk of contracting HIV/AIDS.

The bill would also, among other provisions, required persons charged with a sex offense or reckless endangerment of the public health to be tested for HIV/AIDS and the results to be available to the victim (s) upon request.

The announcement in the fall of 1997, that Nushawn Williams had been informed of his HIV-positive status but continued to have unprotected sex with numerous women and underage girls in Chautauqua County, shocked the state and the nation. Williams was directly responsible for infecting thirteen victims statewide with HIV, two of whom passed on the virus to their children.

Williams completed his 12-year sentence for reckless endangerment and two counts of statutory rape last Tuesday, but continues to be held at Wende Correctional Facility in Alden.

While in prison, Williams tossed his HIV-tainted urine at another inmate, said he wanted to infect more women with HIV when he is released, fought with other prisoners, engaged in gang activity, and arranged to have drugs smuggled in and used them. He did not complete any sex offender or drug treatment programs.

In a required pre-release psychiatric evaluation, Williams was found to be antisocial, psychopathic, lacking in remorse and “prone to further sexual contact with underage individuals because of deficits in his emotional capacity to understand why this is wrong.”

Specifically, Senator Young’s legislation (S. 3407) would:

– Create the crime of reckless endangerment of the public health in the 1st degree, a class B felony, for those who are aware that they have tested positive for HIV/AIDS and then recklessly engage in conduct which results in transmission of the virus to another person who is unaware of the condition. Also creates the crime or reckless endangerment of the public health in the 2nd degree, a class C felony, for those who have tested positive and then engage in conduct which creates a substantial risk of the transmission of HIV/AIDS to another unwitting person;

– Create a class E felony for providing false information or statement regarding HIV status to a health care provider;

– Require all currently incarcerated persons and persons newly entering a correctional

facility be tested for the HIV virus;

– Provide that a person charged with a sex offense under article 130 of the State Penal Law or reckless endangerment in the 1st or 2nd degrees must be tested for HIV and the results of the test made available to the victim (s) and defendant upon request;

– Provide that upon the diagnosis of an inmate with HIV/AIDS, notice of the diagnosis must be provided to corrections personnel and others involved in the supervision and care of the inmate to that they can take appropriate measure to protect themselves and other inmates from exposure.

Global: UNAIDS/UNDP supports Swiss statement, announces new Global Commission on HIV and the Law

Following on from yesterday’s post about the report by the UN Special Rapporteur on the Human Right to Health, on the impact of criminalisation, UNAIDS and UNDP have issued a statement welcoming the report. (Click here for the pdf: full text below)

One of the most intriguing things about this statement is its recognition that antiretroviral therapy significantly reduces the risk of infection on an individual level, something UNAIDS has not previously supported.

It is even more critical to get those living with HIV on treatment as the latest science shows that treatment reduces HIV transmission by 92% at the population level, and can have even greater impacts for individuals.

The footnote following the phrase “greater impacts for individuals” states:

The Swiss National AIDS Commission (EKAF) has stated that “an HIV-infected person on antiretroviral therapy with completely suppressed viraemia (‘effective ART’) is not sexually infectious, i.e. cannot transmit HIV through sexual contact.” However, the Commission qualifies its statement, noting that it is considered valid only so long as: (a) the person adheres to antiretroviral therapy, the effects of which must be evaluated regularly by the treating physician, and (b) the viral load has been suppressed (below 40 copies/ml) for at least six months, and (c) there are no other sexually transmitted infections. See P Vernazza et al (2008), “Les personnes séropositives ne souffrant d’aucune autre MST et suivant un traitment antirétroviral efficace ne transmettent pas le VIH par voie sexuelle”, Bulletin des médecins suisses 89:165-169. Available on-line at http://www.saez.ch/pdf_f/2008/2008-05/2008-05-089.PDF

This contrasts with the extremely non-committal statement UNAIDS made jointly with WHO immediately after the Swiss Statement.

But that’s all water under the bridge, I guess. Yes, any laws that prevent people from knowing their status and accessing treatment are bad. But we must fight to ensure that treatment’s impact on infectiousness is always a secondary factor to the individual’s choice regarding whether and when to start treatment. Treatment must be treatment first, prevention second. That’s a big part of the work I’m currently doing for GNP+ and UNAIDS producing a new framework for positive prevention known as Positive Health, Dignity and Prevention.

Another significant part of the UNAIDS/UNDP statement is the first public announcement of a new Global Commission on HIV and the Law (which had been called the International Commission on HIV and Law or ICAL in documents I’d previously seen) “which comprises public leaders from across the globe and will be supported by experts on HIV, law, human rights and public health. This Commission will marshal the evidence of enabling versus punitive laws on HIV responses, hold regional hearings, and issue evidence-informed recommendations.”

The Commission will be officially launched later this month.

Statement by the Secretariat of the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) and the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)

14th Session the Human Rights Council

Agenda Item 3: Promotion and protection of all human rights, civil,
political, economic, social and cultural rights, including the right to
development

7 June 2010
Geneva

Mr President, distinguished delegates, ladies and gentlemen,

The UNAIDS Secretariat and UNDP thank the Human Rights Council for the opportunity to speak under this agenda item. As this Council knows, for almost 30 years, the world has sought the most effective response to the HIV epidemic. This challenge has repeatedly shown that a human rights-based approach to HIV is the most effective approach to HIV.

This fact has been long recognized by the Commission on Human Rights, this Council and by Member States. This is because human rights and legal protections are essential to enable people to get the HIV information and services they need, to avoid infection, and if HIV positive to disclose their status and get treatment. It is even more critical to get those living with HIV on treatment as the latest science shows that treatment reduces HIV transmission by 92% at the population level, and can have even greater impacts for individuals.

Many States continue to criminalize sexual minorities, people who use drugs, people
who engage in sex work, as well as people living with HIV. The result is that thousands of people fear or are unable to get tested for HIV, to disclose their HIV status, to access HIV prevention, treatment and care. This puts both these groups and the larger public at risk. Under these circumstances, universal access to HIV prevention, treatment, care and support will not be realised; and we will not achieve many of the Millennium Development Goals.

Because of this, the Executive Director of UNAIDS, Michel Sidibé, has made one of the corporate priorities of UNAIDS to support countries to “remove punitive laws, policies, practices, stigma and discrimination that block effective AIDS responses.”

For these reasons, the UNAIDS Secretariat and UNDP welcome the report of the Special Rapportueur on the Right of Everyone to the Enjoyment of the Highest Attainable Standard of Physical and Mental Health. We hope it will help to generate constructive debate, and catalyse change toward a more rights-based and effective AIDS response.

The report of the Special Rapporteur underlines how the criminal law, when misused, can and does have a very negative impact on the right to health. When the criminal law is applied to adults engaging in private consensual sexual behavior – whether in the context of same-sex sexual orientation or in the context of the exchange of money for sex – it also violates the rights to privacy and liberty and acts as a major impediment to HIV prevention and treatment. Where overly broad criminal laws are applied to people living with HIV, the impact is in direct contradiction to public health efforts to encourage people to come forward to get on treatment and practice safe sex, and reduce HIV transmission in the context of drug use.

The UNAIDS Secretariat and UNDP are fully aware that, in many societies, these issues are the subject of much social, cultural and religious debate. However, the UNAIDS Secretariat and UNDP are concerned that criminalization of aspects of private, consensual adult sexual conduct singles out particular groups for invidious treatment, undermines individual and public health, and transgresses various international human rights norms. Thus, for public health and human rights reasons, the UNAIDS Executive Director and the United Nations Secretary General have called for the removal of punitive laws, policies and practices that hamper the AIDS response. Successful AIDS responses do not punish people, they protect them.

UNDP, on behalf of UNAIDS, is launching the Global Commission on HIV and the Law, which comprises public leaders from across the globe and will be supported by experts on HIV, law, human rights and public health. This Commission will marshal the evidence of enabling versus punitive laws on HIV responses, hold regional hearings, and issue evidence-informed recommendations. The UNAIDS Secretariat and UNDP greatly hope that this Commission will help States and civil society to better use law, law enforcement and access to justice to protect all people from HIV and its impact, as well as from human rights violations in the context of HIV. We look forward to bring to the Council the findings of the Commission at the end of 2011.

Thank you.

Global: UN ‘Criminalisation undermines the Human Right to Health’

One of the most significant documents produced so far on the criminalisation of HIV non-disclosure, exposure and transmission was published today by the United Nations.

It is a report by Anand Grover, the UN Special Rapporteur on the Human Right to Health, specifically the right of everyone to enjoy the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health.

His report highlights the many human rights arguments against the use of the criminal law to prosecute anything except the intentional (i.e. proved beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law that transmission was intended and malicious).

It begins with a very forceful statement.

… the public health goals of legal sanctions are not realized by criminalization. In fact, they are often undermined by it, as is the realization of the right to health. The criminalization of HIV/AIDS transmission also infringes on many other human rights, such as the rights to privacy, to be free from discrimination and to equality, which in turn impacts upon the realization of the right to health. The criminalization of HIV transmission, or behaviours around transmission, is generally recognized as counterproductive, and should be reconsidered in the context of any comprehensive HIV/AIDS response framework.

It then examines the various ways that HIV transmission has been criminalised around the globe before examining the effect on the right to health. It ends with a bang, too.

Informed individuals take steps to prevent HIV transmission irrespective of criminal laws around transmission, and there is little evidence that specific laws criminalizing HIV transmission deter or modify the behaviour of individuals. With little benefit demonstrated in terms of achieving the aims of the criminal law or public health, and a corresponding risk of alienation, stigmatization and fear, it is difficult to see why the criminalization of HIV transmission is justified at all. Laws that are unnecessarily punitive will undermine any public health response to HIV, rather than assist it.

The entire document also includes an examination on the criminalisation of same-sex behaviour, sexual orientation and gender identify as well as sex work, and can be downloaded in full from the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.

For your convenience, I have included pretty much the entire section on the criminalisation of non-disclosure, exposure and transmission below, complete with paragraph numbers, for easy quoting.

A webcast of Mr Grover’s 13 minute speech to the UN General Assembly can be found here. Disappointingly, just one minute is dedicated to the criminalisation of non-disclosure, exposure and transmission (at 2:24).

Nevertheless, this report, and Mr Grover’s speech, is significant in the history of criminalisation, and should be considered a major victory for anti-criminalisation advocates around the world.

Now, we just have to remind our goverments and policymakers to heed his words…

United Nations General Assembly

Human Rights Council

Fourteenth Session

A/HRC/14/20

27 April 2010

Agenda item 3

Promotion and protection of all human rights, civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights, including the right to development

Report of the Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, Anand Grover.

HIV transmission

51. The Special Rapporteur notes that the criminalization of HIV transmission has formed a part of the global response to the HIV/AIDS crisis since its inception. Unfortunately, the public health goals of legal sanctions are not realized by criminalization. In fact, they are often undermined by it, as is the realization of the right to health. The criminalization of HIV/AIDS transmission also infringes on many other human rights, such as the rights to privacy, to be free from discrimination and to equality, which in turn impacts upon the realization of the right to health. The criminalization of HIV transmission, or behaviours around transmission, is generally recognized as counterproductive, and should be reconsidered in the context of any comprehensive HIV/AIDS response framework.

Effects of criminalization on the right to health

No impact on behaviour change or HIV spread

62. The Special Rapporteur notes that criminal laws that explicitly regulate the sexual conduct of people living with HIV have not been shown to significantly impact on sexual conduct, nor do they have a normative effect in moderating risk behaviours. Criminal law does not influence the circumstances in which most HIV transmission occurs. In many regions, the majority of people living with HIV are unaware of their positive status and most cases of HIV transmission occur through consensual sex. Private sexual conduct invariably persists in the face of possible prosecution, but when prosecution actually occurs, these behaviours are driven underground, providing less opportunity for regulation and inhibiting access to preventive activities, diagnostic services, treatment and support.

Undermining existing public health efforts

63. Criminalization of HIV transmission or exposure places legal responsibility for HIV prevention exclusively on those already living with HIV, undermining the notion of shared responsibility between sexual partners, and potentially creating a false sense of security amongst those who are HIV-negative.86 Criminalization also has the potential to discourage HIV testing, which is a core component of successful HIV/AIDS health initiatives. An additional barrier to access to services could be manifested through increased distrust in relationships with health professionals and researchers, impeding the provision of quality care and research, as people may fear that information regarding their HIV status will be used against them in a criminal case or otherwise. As the prevalence of high-risk sexual behaviour is significantly lower in individuals aware of their seropositive status, any laws that discourage testing and diagnosis have the potential to increase the prevalence of risky sexual practices and HIV transmission.

Disproportionate impact on vulnerable communities

64. In jurisdictions where HIV transmissions have been prosecuted, of the very few cases that are prosecuted out of the many infections that occur each year, the majority have been noted to involve defendants in vulnerable social and economic positions. Although laws criminalizing HIV transmission and exposure were, on occasion, enacted to provide women with greater protection, applying these laws broadly has also resulted in women being disproportionately affected. For instance, a woman was prosecuted under section 79 of the Zimbabwe Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act 23 of 2004 for having unprotected sex while HIV-positive, despite HIV not even being transmitted to the “victim” in question.

65. Women often learn they are HIV-positive before their male partners because they are more likely to seek access to health services and are consequently blamed for introducing the infection into communities. For many women, it is also difficult or impossible to negotiate safer sex or to disclose their status to a partner for fear of violence, abandonment or other negative consequences. Women may therefore face prosecution as a result of their failure to disclose, despite having valid reasons for non-disclosure. These laws do not provide women with any additional protection against violence or assurance of their rights to sexual decision-making and safety, and do not address the underlying socioeconomic factors that increase women’s vulnerability.

Criminalization of mother-to-child transmission

66. Some countries have enacted laws that criminalize mother-to-child transmission explicitly (see paragraph 54 above) or implicitly due to overly broad drafting of the law. Where the right to access to appropriate health services (such as comprehensive prevention of mother-to-child transmission services and safe breastfeeding alternatives) is not ensured, women are simply unable to take necessary precautions to prevent transmission, which could place them at risk of criminal liability. […]

Stigma, discrimination and violence

68. Stigma represents a major impediment to the implementation of successful interventions in respect of HIV/AIDS. Applying criminal law to HIV exposure or transmission can reinforce the stereotype that people living with HIV are immoral and irresponsible, further entrenching HIV-related stigma. People living with HIV/AIDS may, in turn, internalize the negative responses of others. This self-stigmatization affects the sense of pride and worth of individuals, which can lead to depression and self-imposed withdrawal, hampering access to HIV/AIDS treatment and interventions. In this way, criminalization impedes the right to health by constructing barriers to access by creating an environment in which individuals feel as if they are not deserving of treatment.

69. Discrimination against those affected by HIV/AIDS is one of the manifestations of stigma. For those living with HIV, actual and feared discrimination acts as a barrier to HIV-specific health services, including testing, anti-retroviral therapy and services in the prevention of mother-to-child transmission, in addition to broader health services.

70. The Special Rapporteur notes that individuals living with HIV have been convicted of crimes that did not actually inflict physical harm, damage any property or otherwise cause injury. Disproportionate severity in sentencing of those convicted of “HIV crimes” has become evident in a number of cases, the inference being that the defendants’ HIV status played a significant role in conviction and imprisonment. Criminal prosecutions, and the publicity stemming from them, have been found to increase stigmatization and have been perceived by people living with HIV as undermining public health efforts encouraging safer sex.

71. The criminalization of HIV transmission also increases the risk of violence directed towards affected individuals, particularly women. HIV-positive women are 10 times more likely to experience violence and abuse than women who are HIV-negative.

Right-to-health approach

72. The Special Rapporteur emphasizes that any domestic legislation concerning HIV transmission should be based on a right-to-health approach; that is, States must comply with their obligations to respect, protect and fulfil the right to health through the enactment of such legislation. Most relevantly, the obligation to protect requires States to take measures to protect all vulnerable or marginalized groups of society, and the obligation to fulfil similarly requires steps to assist individuals and communities to enjoy the right to health – particularly those who are unable to realize the right themselves.

73. Any law concerning HIV transmission should therefore be directed at issues around public infrastructure, access to medicines, information campaigns concerning HIV/AIDS and so forth. The criminalization of HIV transmission should not form the mainstay of a national HIV/AIDS response, and its necessity is questionable in any event. Informed individuals take steps to prevent HIV transmission irrespective of criminal laws around transmission, and there is little evidence that specific laws criminalizing HIV transmission deter or modify the behaviour of individuals. With little benefit demonstrated in terms of achieving the aims of the criminal law or public health, and a corresponding risk of alienation, stigmatization and fear, it is difficult to see why the criminalization of HIV transmission is justified at all. Laws that are unnecessarily punitive will undermine any public health response to HIV, rather than assist it.

74. As such, criminalization should be considered permissible only in cases involving intentional, malicious transmission. The criminalization of any lesser mens rea is not only inappropriate, but also it is counterproductive in the struggle against the spread of HIV. In the view of UNAIDS:

Criminal law should not be applied where there is no significant risk of transmission or where the person:

• Did not know that he/she was HIV-positive

• Did not understand how HIV is transmitted

• Disclosed his/her HIV-positive status to the person at risk (or honestly believed the other person was aware of his/her status through some other means)

• Did not disclose his/her HIV-positive status because of fear of violence or other serious negative consequences

• Took reasonable measures to reduce risk of transmission, such as practising safer sex through using a condom or other precautions to avoid higher risk acts

• Previously agreed on a level of mutually acceptable risk with the other person

75. Finally, domestic laws prohibiting the deliberate spread of any disease or assault, or laws concerning the age of consent, adequately cover intentional transmission of HIV should the need arise to prosecute cases where this has occurred. The use of these preexisting laws provides a legal safeguard to potential victims, without unnecessarily stigmatizing and further marginalizing those affected by HIV within the jurisdiction. States should, in addition to using pre-existing laws, issue guidelines to ensure that these laws are only utilized in cases of intentional transmission and that the relevant mens rea is to be established beyond a reasonable doubt.

Recommendations

76. The Special Rapporteur calls upon States:

[..]

(c) To immediately repeal laws criminalizing the unintentional transmission of or exposure to HIV, and to reconsider the use of specific laws criminalizing intentional transmission of HIV, as domestic laws of the majority of States already contain provisions which allow for prosecution of these exceptional cases.

Global: Ten reasons why criminalisation of HIV exposure or transmission harms women

A new pamphlet released to coincide with World AIDS Day highlights why criminalisation is bad for women and girls, despite policymakers believing they are enacting new HIV-specific laws in order to protect them.

In addition to criminalizing the transmission of HIV, these laws sometimes call for mandatory HIV testing of pregnant women, as well as for non-consensual partner disclosure by healthcare providers; further exacerbating the impact of such legislation on women. The call to apply criminal law to HIV exposure and transmission is often driven by a well-intentioned wish to protect women, and to respond to serious concerns about the ongoing rapid spread of HIV in many countries, coupled with the perceived failure of existing HIV prevention efforts. While these concerns are legitimate and must be urgently addressed, closer analysis reveals that criminalization does not prevent new HIV transmissions or reduce women’s vulnerabilities to HIV. In fact, criminalization harms women, rather than assists them, while negatively impacting on both public health needs and human rights protections. Applying criminal law to HIV exposure is likely to heighten the risk of or transmission does nothing to violence and abuse women face; address the epidemic of gender-strengthen prevailing gendered based violence or the deep economic, inequalities in healthcare and family social, and political inequalities that settings; further promote fear and are at the root of women’s and girls’ stigma; increase women’s risks and disproportionate vulnerability to HIV.

It then details the ten reasons:

  1. Women will be deterred from accessing HIV prevention, treatment, and care services, including HIV testing
  2. Women are more likely to be blamed for HIV transmission
  3. Women will be at greater risk of HIV-related violence and abuse
  4. Criminalisation of HIV exposure or transmission does not protect women from coercion or violence
  5. Women’s rights to make informed sexual and reproductive choices will be further compromised
  6. Women are more likely to be prosecuted
  7. Some women might be prosecuted for mother-to-child transmission
  8. Women will be more vulnerable to HIV transmission
  9. The most ‘vulnerable and marginalized’ women will be most affected
  10. Human rights responses to HIV are most effective.

10 Reasons Why Criminalization of HIV Exposure or Transmission Harms Women was drafted by Dr. Johanna Kehler of the AIDS Legal Network, Michaela Clayton of the AIDS & Rights Alliance for Southern Africa, and Tyler Crone of the ATHENA Network.

You can download the pdf of the pamphlet here.

To endorse the document or for more information, please contact:

ATHENA Network: www.athenanetwork.org

AIDS Legal Network: www.aln.org.za

ARASA: www.arasa.info

Australia: New publication examines criminalisation; works as advocacy tool

NAPWA monograph:
click on image to download
There have been some very important policy developments in Australia recently that I’ve been waiting to post about until I’d finished reading the entire (Australian) National Association of People Living With HIV/AIDS (NAPWA) monograph, The Criminalisation of HIV Transmission in Australia: Legality, Morality and Reality, to which I contributed a chapter (as a co-author).

I’ve now read all eleven chapters and I have to say that the monograph is essential reading for anyone interested in the issue of criminalisation. It has provided me with a great deal of insight and food-for-thought as I write my book (an international overview of the issues) for NAM.

As the Honourable Michael Kirby writes in the preface

“NAPWA has collected knowledgeable and informed commentators who have a great awareness of the epidemic in Australia. Without exception, the chapters are thoughtful, balanced and informative. I hope that they will be read in Australia. Indeed, I hope that they will be available overseas to bring enlightenment that is the first step in an effective response to the epidemic.”

You can see video of MP Kay Hull speaking at the launch, held last month in Canberra, here.

The monograph is already working its magic as an advocacy tool. Last week, the Sydney Star Observer reports that HIV organisations in Victoria – where more than half of all Australian prosecutions have taken place – are leading the call to clarify exactly when the public health department will involve the police to deal with people who are not disclosing their HIV status and having unprotected sex.

Contents: click on image to enlarge

One of the chapters in the monograph examines such discrepancies in new state and national guidance on the management of people living with HIV who engage in risky sexual behaviour. The National Guidelines for the Management of People with HIV Who Place Others at Risk were produced in 2008 following the fallout from the Michael Neal and Stuart
McDonald cases. The guidelines recommend that public health authorities refer people who persistently ignore warnings to disclose and/or practise safer sex to the police as a last resort, but aren’t very clear on how this happens in practice.

Victorian AIDS Council executive director Mike Kennedy said although there were guidelines, a recent meeting of AIDS Council heads showed other states were similarly unclear about exactly what circumstances trigger a referral to police. “I’m not aware of any Australian state that has any clear guideline to say how this will happen, so that’s the missing bit from the reviews that were done around the country,” Kennedy said. “Our view is that [protocols] ought to be governed by a set of agreed procedures, not just rely on goodwill and a set of relationships between people in the Health Department and people in the police service because those people change.”

The NAPWA monograph also includes an enlightening chapter on the impact of prosecutions on people living with HIV, concern echoed in this comment in the SSO article from People Living With HIV/AIDS Victoria president Paul Kidd.

[Kidd] said the uncertainty of where criminal charges would be pursued was creating concern among some HIV positive people. “They’re fearful that in the normal course of their sexual lives they could put themselves in a situation where they inadvertently attract the attention of the police,” Kidd said. “We’re not talking about people who are deliberately spreading HIV or behaving in a negligent fashion. We’re talking about ordinary gay men and other people who are HIV positive who live in an environment where unprotected sex is a part of [their] lives.

I’m also reproducing an editorial by Robert Mitchell, NAPWA’s president, below, to give you an idea how NAPWA hopes this monograph will lead to a change in the way Australia deals with criminal prosecutions.

HIV affects us all and, positive or negative, gay or straight, we all have a responsibility to do what we can do prevent HIV transmission. People living with HIV have long accepted the critical role they play in preventing HIV infections, as part of a model of shared responsibility. But the recent increases in criminal prosecutions of HIV exposure and transmission in Australia have caused considerable concern and led some to ask: is that model of shared responsibility breaking down?

In response, last year NAPWA commissioned a collection of papers to examine these issues. We wanted to show how these cases have been prosecuted quite inconsistently across the country, and how they have been represented in the public domain by media coverage. We are launching the resulting monograph, The Criminalisation of HIV Transmission in Australia: Legality, Morality and Reality, this week.

A number of authors with different viewpoints have contributed to the monograph, including academics, legal experts and voices from within the HIV-positive and HIV-affected communities. The end result is a collection of papers that provide rigorous analysis of the current environment in Australia, and other parts of the world, with regards to prosecution of HIV transmission.

This set of materials and commentaries will be the basis for further work on these issues by NAPWA and its member organisations. Our intention is to start a dialogue across the HIV sector and with the broader public health and legal sectors, to examine the issues raised and the impact of criminal prosecutions on the HIV-positive community in Australia today.

While few would argue that an HIV-positive person who deliberately and maliciously sets out to infect another person with HIV has committed an act of violence that should be subject to criminal sanction, very few of the prosecutions in Australia have been in this category. Almost all have been for the ‘knowing and reckless’ category of HIV transmission, where the accused had no intention of transmitting HIV.

The use of criminal law against a person on the basis of HIV status in these circumstances is considered by many to be discriminatory, as it treats the HIV-positive partner as perpetrator and the HIV-negative partner as victim. This shifts the burden of prevention onto people with HIV, and undermines established principles of shared responsibility and safe, consenting, sexual practice.

The blame and persecution directed towards HIV positive people is unacceptable and NAPWA is calling for a review of criminal laws to redress this imbalance. Laws requiring mandatory disclosure by positive people, and laws that treat HIV as inherently more serious than other infections with similar medical impacts, are areas we think need fixing. We need a nationally consistent legal framework that supports public health policy and population health outcomes, and protects the human rights of people with HIV.

NAPWA hopes this work will spark interest and support from across the community to work towards resolving these differences and contradictions. We are working towards a nationally consistent, fair and just legal framework that reinforces rather than degrades the model of shared responsibility and treats HIV as a health issue first and a legal issue only as a last resort.

Canada: Video project highlights anger, frustration with criminalisation

A new video project by Canada-based filmmaker Orazio Caltagirone, AIDSphobia, is now available to watch on YouTube.

Mixing speeches by Edwin Cameron with TV footage and other existing media, the video explores various issues surrounding the criminalisation of people living with HIV. Although it can be confusing and difficult to watch at times, it is obvious that the filmmaker is passionate about the subject, and angry. “One of the main reasons why I decided to make this video is because this situation is getting out of control in my country,” Orazio tells me in an email.

The video totals 60 minutes, but is split into ten parts.

1 3:57 AIDSphobia INTRO

2 4:59 IN THE BEGINNING…

3 5:21 SPITTING

4 4:15 THE STIGMA

5 4:25 AIDS IS A MASS MURDERER

6 8:50 JOHNSON AZIGA

7 8:59 RELIGION

8 7:51 GTD: STATS

9 7:28 10 REASONS

10 4:41 CLOSING CREDITS