This playlist contains recordings of a training for lawyers on strategic litigation, legal defense and advocacy on HIV and TB justice from 20-23 February 2018 in Johannesburg, South Africa by the Southern Africa Litigation Centre (SALC), HIV Justice Worldwide, the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS), the Stop TB Partnership, the AIDS and Rights Alliance for Southern Africa (ARASA), and the Kenya Legal & Ethical Issues Network on HIV and AIDS (KELIN). The training was funded under the Africa Regional Grant on HIV: Removing Legal Barriers. Resources and more information on the training are available here: http://www.southernafricalitigationce… With thanks to Nicholas Feustel of Georgetown Media.
FCAA Philanthopy Summit: Growing the Global Movement to End Criminalization (Funders Concerned About AIDS, 2017)
This session aimed at philanthropic funders discussed the growing global movement to end HIV criminalization – overly broad and/or vague criminal laws, that unjustly regulate, control, and/or punish people living with HIV solely based on their HIV status. The panel’s participants exemplify the uniqueness of the Robert Carr Fund model of incentivizing collaborative and joint efforts of networks across movements – who join into consortia of, for example, people living with HIV and human rights defenders/lawyers – and the model of linking activities at global, regional and national levels, which catalyzes a more aligned and impactful effect in resisting and fighting HIV criminalization.
Moderator: Sergey Votyagov, Robert Carr Fund for Civil Society Networks (RCF)
Introduction: Luisa Cabal, Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS)
Panelists:
• Edwin Bernard, HIV Justice Network (HJN)
• Laurel Sprague, Global Network of People Living with HIV (GNP+)
• Lynette Mabote, AIDS and Rights Alliance for Southern Africa (ARASA)
US: Law review article examines Louisiana's HIV-specific law and its discriminatory nature
This law review article summarizes the science of HIV and the historical background of HIV and HIV-related stigmas in the United States (“U.S.”). It delves into statistics about HIV diagnoses in the U.S. and Louisiana, and the disproportionate impact that HIV has on southern communities and communities of color. It then examines Louisiana’s HIV-specific law, introduced in 1987 and not updated since 1993, identifies the ineffectiveness and discriminatory nature of the law, how it is contrary to public health efforts, and calls for science and logic based revisions to it. It also reviews several Louisiana HIV criminal cases. Finally, the article acknowledges that solely changing the HIV criminal statute will not remove the stigma associated with HIV, and proposes mandatory public health training for law enforcement officers and prosecutors to combat implicit biases and HIV stigma.
The full article is availaible here
UK: Whole genome sequencing shows potential as public health tool, but not yet able to definitively prove direction (or timing) in criminal cases
Potential for phylogenetic analysis to show direction of HIV transmission
Tentative results presented in a poster at BHIVA 2017 suggest that a new approach to phylogenetic testing might have the potential to show the direction of HIV infection between two individuals.
While the results are exciting from a scientific perspective, if the approach proves to be robust, this will raise many ethical and legal questions.
Until now, phylogenetic analysis, where sections of two viruses are compared for similarity, has been able to show similarity but crucially not direct infection (a third person could be involved) or direction of infection. Phylogenetic analysis is most useful for showing when transmissions are definitely not linked, when the two strains are unrelated. When linkage is shown, direction of infection cannot be inferred nor the possibility that both infections originated from intermediary partners.
The current study, presented as a poster by Kate El Bouzidi and colleagues from Brighton and Sussex University Hospitals Trust, used whole genome sequencing (WGS) to look at genetic diversity at each of the >9000 individual nucleotide sites in two linked viruses, with heterogeneous samples being interpreted as being the source virus for the sample which had homogeneity at the same nucleotide site.
WGS performed on 170 samples from a UK MSM cohort identified five linked pairs and these were compared to four control pairs where linkage was already established and direction inferred from clinical notes.
The direction of travel was able to be inferred using WGS for 3/4 control pairs, with the single indeterminate result linked to a sample that was taken so long after transmission took place that natural divergence was too great to determine direction.
WGS-inferred direction was consistent with clinical data for 2/5 case pairs. The lack of a signal in two further case pairs with indeterminate was able to be interpreted as not supportive direct transmission, but missing intermediary partners from whom samples were not available.
Finally, the case where WGS-inferred transmission did not match clinical route, was when the sample from the source partner was taken during primary infection (when HIV is likely to be homogenous at most points) several years before likely transmission to the second partner (whose sample was only taken during chronic infection (when heterogeneity is more likely).
This study is funded by both BHIVA and Public Health England as part of the COMPARE-HIV Study (Comparison of Molecular & Phylogenetic Approaches to Reconstruct an Epidemic of HIV), based at Brighton and Sussex University Hospitals NHS Trust.
Comment
The results are preliminary and clearly the timing of samples is likely to be important when interpreting the results from this approach.
WGS may improve our understanding of transmission networks at a population level but it cannot be used to confirm direct transmission at an individual level and sequence data should always be interpreted cautiously in conjunction with clinical information.
However, if the methodology is supported in larger analyses, the results will raise important ethical and legal concerns, especially in countries where HIV transmission is still criminalised.
Reference:
El Bouzidi K et al. Insights into the dynamics of HIV-1 transmission using whole genome deep sequencing. 23rd BHIVA, 4-7 April 2017, Liverpool. Poster abstract P31.
Ethiopia: New report on HIV criminalisation law with a focus on Ethiopia concludes that the use of criminal law to address HIV is anappropriate
Abstract
States ever since the outbreak of HIV/AIDS have been using different methods in order to combat the pandemic if possible and to reduce vulnerability. In spite of this, HIV/AIDS continues to be prevalent especially in a less developed countries to the extent that it to be hurdle for development. Criminalization of HIV/AIDS patients is one of the mechanisms that are used in the fight against the deadly disease. However, employing criminalization as prevention and vulnerability reduction strategy poses a question and stimulates a debate. Hence, the main thrust of this article is to identify this challenge and to assess whether criminalization of HIV/AIDS patients reduce vulnerability to HIV/AIDS. This being the aim it will also go on to analyze the role of criminal law in a public health issue. In doing so, the article will discuss experience of countries in criminalization of HIV/AIDS patients along side with international frameworks. At a glance, criminal law through a vehicle of punishment seems to play a role in reducing vulnerability to HIV/AIDS but, the writer based on the analyses of relevant literature and experiences of countries, argues that the use of criminal law to address HIV is inappropriate except in rare cases where a person acts with conscious intent to transmit HIV and does so, and this is because of the high degree of proof required in criminal case and the difficulty of using criminal law in HIV related issue due to the nature of the disease and the absence of technology used for the required proof in the criminal law, i.e. beyond reasonable doubt.
Ekubu, Y. (2016) Reducing Vulnerabilities to HIV: Does the Criminalization of HIVAIDS Patients Contribute?. Beijing Law Review, 7, 292-313. doi: 10.4236/blr.2016.74027.
The report can be downloaded here
Social Science Update: Where criminalisation of sex work intersects with HIV criminalisation
In this article, authors Sienna Baskin, Aziza Ahmed, and Anna Forbes examine the interlocking webs of anti-prostitution laws and HIV criminalisation. Throughout the piece, the authors demonstrate critical research ethics by taking, as their starting point, the lives, freedom, and dignity of sex workers living with HIV.
Baskin et al. describe the ways in which, for sex workers, criminalisation is about so much more than the simple existence of laws. Instead, it is the particular policing and prosecutorial practices in a jurisdiction, based on the laws in place, that shape the lives of sex workers.
Similar to HIV-specific criminal laws, laws criminalising sex work are generally broadly written and arbitrarily enforced, enabling systemic discrimination and bias to turn into prosecutions of people of color and poor people.
The authors detail the consequences of arrest and prosecution that are frequently ignored in discussions of the criminal laws, including violence at the hands of police and fellow inmates, costly fees, possible loss of custody of one’s children, loss of employment and housing, and even loss of the right to sue police for violence that the police enact against sex workers in custody.
When HIV ‘exposure’ is also a crime in a state, then the legal penalties for sex work become even more harmful. If a sex worker is living with HIV, then she or he more often faces a felony rather than misdemeanor charge.
Using public health law mapping, the authors examine the US states that have HIV-specific criminal laws, laws criminalising sex work while living with HIV, and court-imposed mandatory HIV testing for people accused or convicted of sex work.
Baskin et al. find tremendous variety in the legislation from differences in when and how mandatory testing is conducted, to whom HIV test results are revealed, to how the results are used in court.
Of the approximately 32 U.S. states that criminalise HIV ‘exposure’, 14 have specific penalties for HIV-positive sex workers. Eleven states require mandatory HIV testing of sex workers and have enhanced sex work penalties for those living with HIV. Further, those prosecuted for sex work while living with HIV can be prosecuted under general (non HIV-specific) laws in any state.
To be prosecuted in eight states, sexual contact need never occur. People need only to be considered to be “loitering” or to make an offer for sexual services. In ten states, laws mandate testing of those prosecuted for sex work and provide enhanced penalties for those who engage in sex work who are living with HIV. In these states, any arrest after the first arrest (and related mandatory testing) leads to an almost automatic conviction. The HIV testing results become part of the person’s court files.
Noting that, 30 years into the HIV epidemic, there is no evidence that criminal law approaches have any positive effect on HIV prevention, the authors contend that criminalising sex work serves only to harm and discriminate against vulnerable populations and to perpetuate the HIV epidemic.
Details
Social Science Update: Review of HIV criminalisation research in the US, 1990-2014
An article reviewing 15 years of U.S.-based social science research on HIV criminalisation was published in the September 2016 issue of AIDS and Behavior. The research team, led by Dini Harsono of Yale University’s Center for Interdisciplinary Research on AIDS (CIRA), Criminalization of HIV Exposure Work Group, described results from twenty-five research studies conducted in the US from 1990-2014. Studies were conducted with women and men living with HIV, gay men and other men who have sex with men (HIV-positive and –negative), public health workers, and medical providers.
Across the studies, the authors found that, while awareness of HIV exposure laws was generally low, attitudes were generally supportive of criminalisation.[1] The studies showed little to no relationship between the existence of laws and decisions to disclose one’s positive HIV status or to test for HIV. The clearest relationships between stigma and HIV non-disclosure laws could be found from the Sero Project study findings that people living with HIV expect to be treated with bias in the courts simply because of their HIV status. The authors call for future studies to pay more attention to health outcomes, rather than attitudes, and to more closely research prosecution and enforcement practices.
For a global overview of HIV criminalisation research, see O’Byrne et al. (2013). “HIV criminal prosecutions and public health: an examination of the empirical research.”
Details
Criminalization of HIV Exposure: A Review of Empirical Studies in the United States, by Dini Harsono, Carol L. Galletly, Elaine O’Keefe, Zita Lazzarini. AIDS Behavior. DOI 10.1007/s10461-016-1540-5. Published online: 7 Sept 2016.
[1] Although the Sero Project study (2012) was included in the research review, one key set of findings was not discussed. In the Sero Project study, support for criminalisation dramatically declined when survey respondents were provided additional response options (beyond only the choice to support criminalization or not) in survey questions.
Criminalization of HIV Exposure: A Review of Empirical Studies in the United States
Analysis: How is Russia’s HIV-specific law being used to prosecute women living with HIV?
(For Russian version, please, scroll down)
At the beginning of 2016, a military officer from Moscow discovered that he was HIV-positive during routine testing. Later, his wife Natalia, who had tested positive for HIV several years ago, admitted that she had been afraid to disclose her HIV-positive status because she feared violent reprisals from her husband. The officer went to the police to commence criminal proceedings against Natalia, and the investigation continues. The media – as in most countries, our only source of information on cases like this – has not yet provided much more information about the case, so we do not know how long Natalia was forced to hide her HIV-positive status from her husband because of fear of violence.
This is not the only case started against a woman for alleged HIV transmission in 2016.
In January, 24-year-old Nadezhda, who lives in the Amur Oblast in the Russian Far East, was found guilty of charges of alleged HIV transmission to three men, under part 1, Art. 122, and part 3, Art. 122 of the Criminal Code (‘infecting others with HIV, knowing about the presence of this disease). She was sentenced to four years in a penal colony. Nadezhda appealed the verdict, but the panel of judges upheld both the verdict and her sentence.
More recently, in the summer of 2016, a 33-year-old woman from Bryansk, 379 kilometers southwest of Moscow, was prosecuted for allegedly infecting her male partner with HIV. The court used evidence that she was registered at an AIDS centre since 2007 against her, since she met the man in 2014. However, the court was relatively lenient, and she was given a three year suspended sentence followed by a three year probation period. In addition, consistent with best practice, her name was not disclosed in the media, in contrast to Nadezhda’s whose name was published in the news release by the Press Service of the Prosecutor’s Office.
At AIDS 2016 in Durban last month, the HIV Justice Network revealed new data showing that Russia now tops the global HIV criminalisation league table. We found reports of at least 115 arrests, prosecutions and/or convictions in Russia during the 30-month period: April 2013 to October 2015.
We have now collected eleven stories from the Russian media about women convicted under Article 122.
Since 2007, at least three of these women were sentenced to more than four years in prison for alleged HIV transmission to one or more partners. Another woman received a sentence of one year, seven months in prison, and a further two women had a suspended one-year and three-year sentence. In one case the court gave a 20 year-old woman 6-month’s probation. Verdicts for three cases are unknown.
It not just alleged HIV transmission that is being prosecuted; we also know of a 2013 case of a woman from the town of Kungur in the Perm Oblast, who was sentenced to spend one year and three months in a penal colony for potential or perceived HIV exposure: her partner was not infected.
Of particular concern is that in all of the above cases, evidence of prior knowledge of HIV-positive status came from medical records. In Russia, each newly-diagnosed person must sign an informed consent form indicating that he or she is informed of their potential criminal liability under Article 122 for HIV exposure and transmission. This informed consent is attached to their medical history, ready for an official request.
Furthermore, in cases of alleged HIV transmission, the public prosecutor did not adequately investigate the causal link between the accused and the complainant, because there is no test that can establish the timing and direction of transmission without any doubt. It is possible, for example, that some of the male complainants were infected before they had relationships with their female partners and before they themselves were diagnosed HIV-positive.
Article 122 was introduced into the Criminal Code, in particular, to protect women from HIV infection, but it is clear from our research that the law has been applied against women in Russia.
There are many reasons why women are vulnerable when HIV criminalisation intersects with gender inequality and violence. These include, but are not limited to, the following:
- Women often do not make decisions about when to have sex, with whom, and whether or not to use condoms.
- Women are often economically dependent on their partner, which increases the inequality in their relationships.
- Unfortunately, there is evidence that intimate partner violence often occurs when a woman discloses her HIV status.
- Fear of prosecution prevents women from getting tested, knowing their status, and getting HIV treatment, because many laws are applied precisely against those who know about their diagnosis.
There is a hope that shedding light on what is going on in Russia will help mobilize people around these unjust prosecutions. As new cases emerge we will continue to report on them on the HIV Justice Network website.
Evgenia Maron is the HIV Justice Network’s EECA Consultant
В начале 2016 года военный из Москвы во время регулярного обследования обнаружил, что инфицирован ВИЧ. Позднее его жена Наталья, которая получила положительный результат на ВИЧ за несколько лет до этого, пояснила, что боялась рассказать о своем ВИЧ-позитивном статусе из-за страха насилия и возмездия со стороны своего мужа. Военный обратился в полицию, чтобы возбудить дело против Натальи, расследование продолжается. СМИ – во многих странах наш единственный источник информации о таких делах, как это, – не дают много данных об этом деле, поэтому мы не знаем, сколько лет Наталья вынуждена была скрывать свой ВИЧ-позитивный статус от мужа из-за страха насилия.
Это не единственное дело против женщин за передачу ВИЧ-инфекции в 2016 году.
В январе 24-летняя Надежда, которая живет в Амурской области на Российском Дальнем Востоке, была признана виновной в передаче ВИЧ трем мужчинам по части 1 ст. 122 и части 3 ст. 122 Уголовного Кодекса (“заражение другого лица ВИЧ-инфекцией лицом, знавшим о наличии данного заболевания”). Ей было назначено наказание в виде четырех лет лишения свободы с отбыванием в исправительной колонии общего режима. Надежда обжаловала приговор, но судебная коллегия оставила его в силе.
Совсем недавно, летом 2016 года, против 33-летней женщины из Брянска, что в 379 километрах к юго-западу от Москвы, было возбуждено уголовное дело за предположительное заражение своего друга ВИЧ. Суд использовал против нее тот факт, что женщина состояла на учете в СПИД-центре с 2007 года, а этого мужчину она встретила в 2014 году. Однако, решение суда было относительно мягким, женщине назначили условное лишение свободы на три года с таким же испытательным сроком. Кроме того, как и полагается в лучших практиках, ее имя и фамилию в СМИ не указывали, в отличие от Надежды из предыдущей истории, чье имя было опубликовано в релизе пресс-службы прокуратуры.
На конференции AIDS 2016 в прошлом месяце в Дурбане, Сеть «Правосудие и ВИЧ» сообщила о новых данных, которые показывают, что Россия возглавляет топ лиги глобальной криминализации ВИЧ. Мы нашли сообщения о по меньшей мере 115 арестах, преследованиях и/или обвинениях в России в течение 30 месяцев с апреля 2013 года по октябрь 2015 года.
Мы собрали одиннадцать историй российских СМИ о женщинах, обвиняемых по статье 122.
Начиная с 2007 года, по меньшей мере трое из этих женщин были приговорены к более, чем четырем годам в тюрьме предположительно за заражение ВИЧ одного или более партнеров. Еще одна женщина получила oдин год семь месяцев тюрьмы, еще две женщины – условный срок продолжительностью один год и три года. В одном случае суд приговорил 20-летнюю женщину к 6-месячному условному сроку. Вердикты по трем случаям не известны.
Преследуется не только предположительное заражение ВИЧ; мы также знаем о деле 2013 года против женщины из города Кунгур в Пермской области, которую приговорили к одному году трем месяца в исправительной колонии за потенциальное или предположительное поставление в опасность заражения ВИЧ: ее партнер не заразился.
Особую обеспокоенность в этих рейсах вызывают доказательства, что обвиняемые знали о своем ВИЧ-позитивном статусе, были основаны на медицинских историях. В России каждый вновь диагностированный человек должен подписать информированное согласие, где указано, что он или она проинформированы о возможной уголовной ответственности по статье 122 за постановку в угрозу заражения и заражение ВИЧ. Это информированное согласие хранится вместе с медицинской историей пациента, готовое для официального запроса.
Более того, в случаях предположительной передачи ВИЧ, прокурор не исследовал адекватно причинно-следственную связь между подозреваемым и потерпевшим, потому что не существует теста, который может установить время и направление передачи без всякого сомнения. Например, возможно, что некоторые потерпевшие мужчины были заражены ВИЧ до того, как у они вступили в отношения с их партнерами-женщинами, и перед тем, как они сами получили ВИЧ-позитивный диагноз
Статья 122 была введена в Уголовный Кодекс, в частности, чтобы защитить женщин от ВИЧ-инфекции, но из нашего исследования станосится ясно, что в России этот закон применяется против женщин.
Существует много причин, почему женщины более уязвимы, когда криминализация ВИЧ пересекается с гендерным неравенством и насилием. Это касается, но не ограничивается, следующим:
- Женщины часто не принимают решения о том, когда и с кем заниматься сексом, использовать презервативы или нет.
- Женщины часто зависимы экономически от своего партнера, что усиливает неравенство в их отношениях.
- К сожалению, есть данные, что насилие со стороны интимного партнера часто следует за тем, когда женщина раскрывает свой ВИЧ-статус.
- Страх уголовного преследования мешает женщинам тестироваться, знать свой статус и получать лечение ВИЧ, потому что многие законы применяются исключительно против тех, кто знает о своем диагнозе.
Мы надеемся, что если пролить свет на то, что происходит в России, это поможет мобилизации людей против этого несправедливого преследования. Так как появляются новые кейсы, мы продолжим информировать о них на сайте Сети “Правосудие и ВИЧ”.
Webinar: HIV Criminalization Attitudes and Opinions of the American Public (Sero, 2016)
Presenters: Sean Strub and Dr. Rosita Thomas
New report shows HIV criminalisation is a growing, global concern but advocates are fighting back
A new report released today shows that HIV criminalisation is a growing, global phenomenon. However, advocates around the world are working hard to ensure that the criminal law’s approach to people living with HIV fits with up-to-date science, as well as key legal and human rights principles.
Click on this link to read or download Advancing HIV Justice 2: Building momentum in global advocacy against HIV criminalisation.
What do we mean by ‘HIV criminalisation’?
HIV criminalisation describes the unjust application of the criminal law to people living with HIV based solely on their HIV status – either via HIV-specific criminal statutes, or by applying general criminal laws that allow for prosecution of unintentional HIV transmission, potential or perceived exposure to HIV where HIV was not transmitted, and/or non-disclosure of known HIV-positive status.
Such unjust application of the criminal law in relation to HIV is (i) not guided by the best available scientific and medical evidence relating to HIV, (ii) fails to uphold the principles of legal and judicial fairness (including key criminal law principles of legality, foreseeability, intent, causality, proportionality and proof), and (iii) infringes upon the human rights of those involved in criminal law cases.
What is the impact of HIV criminalisation?
Understanding the potential negative impact of HIV criminalisation on public health is critical to making informed policy decisions.
The last few years have seen increasing interest among researchers in the area of HIV criminalisation and a push into new areas of enquiry to examine the impacts of the unjust application of criminal law.
The report summarises a body of research which shows that instead of delivering a public health benefit, HIV criminalisation is a poor public health strategy, exacerbating racial and gender inequalities and negatively impacting a number of key areas including: testing; disclosure; sexual behaviour; and healthcare practice.
How many countries around the world have HIV criminalisation laws?
Since our last report, we found an increase in the number of countries that specifically allow for HIV criminalisation: these could be stand-alone HIV-specific criminal laws, part of omnibus HIV laws, or criminal and/or public health laws that specifically mention HIV.
Some of this increase is due to laws enacted since 2013 in Botswana, Cote d’lvoire, Nigeria, Uganda and Veracruz state (Mexico), and some is due to improved reporting and research methodology.
Our analysis shows that a total of 72 countries have adopted laws that specifically allow for HIV criminalisation, either because the law is HIV-specific, or because it names HIV as one (or more) of the diseases covered by the law. This total increases to 101 jurisdictions when the HIV criminalisation laws in 30 of the states that make up the United States are counted individually.
How many countries have prosecuted people living with HIV?
Prosecutions for HIV non-disclosure, potential or perceived exposure and/or unintentional transmission have now been reported in 61 countries. This total increases to 105 jurisdictions when individual US states and Australian states / territories are counted separately.
Of the 61 countries, 26 applied HIV criminalisation laws, 32 applied general criminal or public health laws, and three (Australia, Denmark and United States) applied both HIV criminalisation and general laws.
Where have prosecutions recently taken place?
We found reports of at least 313 arrests, prosecutions and/or convictions in 28 countries during the report period, covering 1 April 2013 to 30 September 2015.
Of note, we are now able to include data on reported prosecutions in Belarus and Russia, which are likely to have been taking place at least since the enactment of a Belarusian public health law in 1993 and a Russian HIV criminalisation law in 1995.
The highest number of cases during this period were reported in:
• Russia (at least 115) • United States (at least 104) • Belarus (at least 20) • Canada (at least 17) • France (at least 7) • United Kingdom (at least 6) • Italy (at least 6) • Australia (at least 5) • Germany (at least 5).
HIV criminalisation in sub-Sarahan Africa of increasing concern
Where there was no HIV criminalisation at the start of the 21st century, 30 sub-Saharan African countries have now enacted overly broad and/or vague HIV-specific criminal statutes.
Most of these statutes are part of omnibus HIV-specific laws that also include protective provisions, such as those relating to non-discrimination in employment, health and housing. However, they also include a number of problematic provisions such as compulsory HIV testing and involuntary partner notification, as well as HIV criminalisation.
During the period covered by this report four countries in sub-Saharan Africa passed new HIV criminalisation laws: Botswana, Cote d’lvoire, Nigeria and Uganda.
Very few countries in Africa are now unaffected by problematic HIV criminalisation laws. The rise of reported prosecutions in Africa during this period (in Botswana, South Africa, Uganda, and especially Zimbabwe), along with the continuing, growing number of HIV criminalisation laws on this continent, is especially alarming.
Where has advocacy improved legal environments?
Important and promising developments in case law, law reform and policy have taken place in many jurisdictions, most of which came about as a direct result of advocacy.
During the report period, although an additional 13 jurisdictions in nine countries proposed new HIV criminalisation laws, seven of these were not passed, primarily due to swift and effective advocacy against them at an early stage. Advocacy in another ten jurisdictions in seven countries challenged, improved or repealed HIV criminalisation laws.
The legal environment relating to HIV criminalisation has improved in a small number of countries in sub-Saharan Africa, most notably in Kenya. On 18 March 2015, Kenya’s High Court ruled that its HIV criminalisation provision – Section 24 of the HIV Prevention and Control Act 2006 – was unconstitutional because it was vague, overbroad and lacking in legal certainty, particularly in respect to the term ‘sexual contact’.
The Court also found it contravened Article 31 of the Kenyan Constitution which guarantees the right to privacy because the law created an obligation for people with HIV to disclose their status to their ‘sexual contacts’, with no corresponding obligation for recipients of such sensitive medical information to keep it confidential.
Using science as an advocacy tool
Increased knowledge about reduced infectiousness due to antiretroviral therapy has led to advocacy that resulted in a number of jurisdictions revising or revisiting their criminal laws or prosecutorial policies relating to HIV criminalisation, although progress has been frustratingly slow.
Following the ‘Swiss statement’, published in January 2008, a growing number of courts, government ministries and prosecutorial authorities have accepted antiretroviral therapy’s impact on reducing the risk of both HIV exposure and transmission.
However, scientific advances alone will neither ‘end AIDS’ nor end HIV criminalisation. Although the impact of antiretroviral therapy on infectiousness is an important advocacy tool, it must be remembered that many people with HIV do not have access to treatment (or are unable to achieve an undetectable viral load when on treatment) and that everyone has a right to choose not to know their status and/or start treatment and should not be stigmatised nor considered ‘second class citizens’ should they wish to delay diagnosis or antiretroviral therapy.
More work required
Despite the many incremental successes of the past few years, much more work is required to strengthen advocacy capacity. This is why a coalition of seven organisations launched HIV Justice Worldwide in April 2016.
We also need to be aware that HIV criminalisation does not exist in vacuum, and is often linked to punitive laws and policies that impact sexual and reproductive health and rights, especially those aimed at sex workers and/or men who have sex with men and other sexual minorities.
And, bearing in mind the stigma faced by those with, for example, hepatitis C and concerns over the sexual transmission of the Ebola and Zika viruses, as we move forward to eliminate – or modernise – HIV criminalisation laws, we must ensure that our work does not inadvertently lead to the further criminalisation of other communicable and/or sexually transmitted infections.
Click on this link to read or download Advancing HIV Justice 2: Building momentum in global advocacy against HIV criminalisation.
A note about the limitations of the data
The data and case analyses in this report covers a 30-month period, 1 April 2013 to 30 September 2015. This begins where the original Advancing HIV Justice report – which covered the 18-month period, 1 September 2011 to 31 March 2013 – left off. Our data should be seen as an illustration of what may be a more widespread, but generally undocumented, use of the criminal law against people with HIV.