UK Parliamentary Reception Marks HIV Is Not A Crime Awareness Day

On Wednesday, 26th February, the HIV Justice Network (HJN) co-hosted a parliamentary reception in the UK Parliament in collaboration with the All-Party Parliamentary Group on HIV, AIDS and Sexual Health (APPGA) and the UK’s National AIDS Trust (NAT). The event, held to mark HIV Is Not A Crime Awareness Day, underscored the urgent need to combat HIV criminalisation in an era of rising global anti-rights movements and shrinking HIV funding.

Baroness Barker, Co-Chair of the APPGA, opened the event, acknowledging the significance of addressing HIV criminalisation within the broader context of human rights and public health.

The Global Scale of HIV Criminalisation

HJN’s Executive Director, Edwin J Bernard, was the first speaker, offering insights into the global state of HIV criminalisation, with a particular focus on Commonwealth countries. He highlighted key issues, including:

  • HIV criminalisation is state-sponsored stigma It punishes people living with HIV for acts that wouldn’t be crimes if they were HIV-negative, perpetuating discrimination and undermining public health efforts.
  • The scale of injustice is vast At least 80 countries have HIV-specific criminal laws, and prosecutions have taken place in at least 90 countries, with Commonwealth nations lagging in law reform.
  • Progress is happening, but remains under threat While 17 countries have reformed their laws, critical funding cuts jeopardise continued advocacy and reform efforts.
  • Sustained investment is essential Law reform takes time, and without long-term, flexible funding, the progress made could be reversed, leaving the most marginalised at risk.
  • The time to act is now Policymakers, funders, and advocates must step up to support efforts to end HIV criminalisation and ensure justice for people living with HIV.

Read the full text of his remarks here: HJN Executive Director’s Speech.

[Show picture list] Photos: Aditi Sharma

Insights from the UK: NAT’s New Report on HIV Criminalisation

Daniel Fluskey, Director of Policy, Research, and Influencing at NAT, presented key findings from NAT’s recently published report, Criminalisation of HIV Transmission: Understanding the Impact (read the report). The report offers several urgent recommendations for reform, including:

  • U=U should be central to legal considerations If an individual has an undetectable viral load, no investigation should take place.
  • Reckless transmission cases can force disclosure Legal proceedings can place individuals in unsafe situations, potentially exposing them to stigma and harm.
  • Police need comprehensive training Investigations must be fair, informed, and necessary to prevent unnecessary criminalisation.
  • Voluntary attendance should replace arrest Arrest should not be the default approach when investigating HIV-related cases.
  • All stakeholders must receive training Including people living with HIV, support staff, and clinicians, to ensure a more informed legal and healthcare environment.

A Personal Story: The Impact of Criminalisation

The event featured a powerful testimony from a man who was unjustly arrested for a crime that never existed—there was no risk, no harm. As a police officer himself, he never imagined he would experience such a humiliating and disproportionate arrest. Multiple officers arrived at his home and charged him with ‘attempted grievous bodily harm’ without explanation or the chance to respond. 

It was only 20 hours into his unlawful detention, during disclosure before his interview, that he was finally told why he had been arrested. At that point, he disclosed his U=U status – evidence that should have prevented his arrest in the first place.

Although he was never formally charged, the case was eventually dismissed as “Entered in Error” after a review of his medical records. Yet, the arrest remains on his record, casting a shadow over his career and deeply impacting his mental health.

“I did nothing wrong,” he concluded, “yet I am still fighting for justice.”

The Forgotten Impact of Past Prosecutions

Sophie Strachan, Director of Sophia Forum, shared her own experience of being diagnosed with HIV while in prison more than two decades ago. She also highlighted the case of the first woman prosecuted in England & Wales for ‘reckless’ HIV transmission. Convicted in 2006 and sentenced to 32 months in prison, she was vilified by the media for a ‘crime’ that would not be prosecuted today under current guidelines.

Nearly 20 years later, this woman remains deeply affected by her conviction. Despite wanting to move forward, her criminal record has made it impossible for her to work or even volunteer. “She is a virtual recluse, terrified that people will still recognise her,” Sophie explained. Her case remains a stark reminder of the lasting impact of unjust prosecutions.

Building Momentum for Change

The reception was attended by members of the UK House of Commons and House of Lords, as well as representatives from UK and international NGOs, philanthropic funders, and advocates working to end HIV criminalisation worldwide.

The discussions reinforced the urgent need for continued advocacy, law reform, and investment to end the unjust criminalisation of people living with HIV. As our Executive Director emphasised: HIV is not a crime. The time to act is now.

2024 in review: Progress amid challenges

As the world grappled with shifting political landscapes and evolving public health priorities, the fight against HIV criminalisation remained a critical, yet often overlooked, human rights issue. The HIV Justice Network and our HIV JUSTICE WORLDWIDE coalition partners navigated a year of both challenges and progress, underscoring the ongoing need for vigilance and advocacy in the face of unjust HIV-related laws and practices.

Rising Case Numbers and Persistent Challenges

In 2024, reported HIV criminalisation cases rose to 65, compared with 57 in 2023 and 50 in 2022. While these numbers remain lower than the 119 cases prior to COVID in 2019, they highlight a troubling upward trend. Cases were documented across 20 countries, with Russia and the United States leading at 26 and 11 cases, respectively. Other notable contributors included Spain (3), Argentina (2), Belarus (2), Senegal (2), and Singapore (2).

In Panama, a 14-year prison sentence for alleged HIV transmission marked the country’s first reported case. Uruguay also saw its first case, where spitting was classified as an ‘assault on health,’ despite no risk of transmission.

These figures only scratch the surface, as media-reported cases represent a fraction of the actual global burden. Civil society organisations uncovered hundreds of previously unreported cases, particularly in Eastern Europe and Central Asia, while the Williams Institute’s research in the U.S. revealed hundreds more, including detailed analyses in Indiana, Maryland, Mississippi, and Ohio.

High-Profile Cases and Intersectional Injustices

Several cases drew international attention in 2024, shedding light on the intersectional injustices of HIV criminalisation.

In Qatar, a British-Mexican national’s arrest after a Grindr sting operation also emphasised the perilous intersection of HIV status, gay identity, and discriminatory laws. Following a public campaign and diplomatic efforts, the individual was released and allowed to leave the country. Similarly, Senegal reported two cases stemming from police raids on LGBTQ individuals, further highlighting how HIV criminalisation disproportionately affects other criminalised and marginalised groups.

A particularly concerning case in South Africa resulted in a life sentence plus ten years for a soldier accused of HIV transmission and non-disclosure. The verdict reflected outdated views equating HIV to a death sentence and reinforced harmful legal interpretations equating HIV non-disclosure with rape. Previously only Canada had framed HIV non-disclosure in this way, and this framing has been roundly criticised by HIV and human rights groups in the country and rejected by Canada’s Justice Committee.

Legal Reforms: Progress and Setbacks

Efforts to modernise or repeal unjust HIV laws gained ground in 2024, with notable victories including:

  • Mexico: Repeal of ‘danger of contagion’ laws in Colima and Mexico City.
  • Tennessee, U.S.: Elimination of mandatory sex offender registration for ‘aggravated prostitution’.
  • Singapore: Introduction of an undetectable viral load defence in HIV exposure laws.

In Uganda, the Constitutional Court struck down the death penalty provision in the Anti-Homosexuality Act 2023, but upheld other regressive aspects, highlighting the mixed fortunes of legal challenges in hostile environments.

There was also disappointing news from Canada, where a federal review of its legal approach to HIV non-disclosure was abandoned, despite tireless advocacy efforts. Other retrogressive moves included Guinea’s harsher penalties for ‘intentional HIV transmission’, Tennessee’s expansion of aggravated rape provisions to include people living with HIV, and reports from China that the municipality of Chongqing was revising laws concerning STI transmission as part of a broader crackdown on HIV.

Policy Developments and Advocacy Wins

Policy shifts in 2024 reflected growing recognition of human rights in public health.

In Uzbekistan, the Ministry of Health reduced the number of prohibited professions, including hairdressing, for people living with HIV.

In the U.S., once the global leader in HIV criminalisation, significant legal and policy improvements continue to be secured. Updated guidelines allowed parents living with HIV to breastfeed, while increased transparency on molecular HIV surveillance marked a small but critical step forward. Nevertheless, unscientific prosecutions were still seen in the U.S. in 2024: conduct that carries little to no risk of transmission was criminalised, including spitting, throwing blood, and sex with an undetectable viral load.

Dedicated advocacy also prevented new criminalisation laws in Uganda and Zimbabwe, the latter rejecting an attempt to reinstate a repealed law criminalising HIV transmission. These successes underscore the power of collective action in resisting harmful legislation.

Courts Upholding Justice

Courts in several countries provided a beacon of hope by rejecting unjust prosecutions:

  • Kenya: A court threw out a baseless charge of deliberate HIV transmission against a domestic worker accused of spitting in food.
  • Italy: A man was acquitted due to a ‘very low viral load’, with the court recognising the negligible transmission risk.
  • Greece: The European Court of Human Rights ruled that the forced testing and public shaming of sex workers violated their rights, setting a vital precedent.

The Road Ahead

Despite these wins, the persistence of HIV criminalisation laws and prosecutions and their disproportionate impact on marginalised communities serve as a sobering reminder of the work still required. As we move into 2025, facing an ever-emboldened anti-rights movement, we remain committed to challenging unjust laws, building power with affected communities, and advocating for evidence-based, rights-affirming approaches.

In a year marked by both setbacks and progress, the global movement against HIV criminalisation demonstrated resilience and resolve. The delicate balance of successes and challenges reminds us that vigilance, advocacy, and solidarity are more crucial than ever in our fight for justice and equality.

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

Canada: The anti-spit mask, a controversial tool

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

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

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

A useful and used tool

The Calgary Police Service uses the anti-spit mask.

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

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

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

A controversy

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

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

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

A dangerous tool?

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

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

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

Supervision measures

Masks are safe if staff follow a precise protocol.

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

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

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

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

Prohibited use

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

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

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

Le masque anti-crachat, un outil controversé

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

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

Un outil utile et utilisé

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

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

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

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

Une polémique

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

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

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

Un outil dangereux?

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

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

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

Des mesures d’encadrement

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

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

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

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

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

Un emploi proscrit

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

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

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

2023 in review: A delicate balance

A DELICATE BALANCE

Working to end punitive laws and policies that impact people living with HIV is never easy, but this year has been especially hard, as we fought to maintain that delicate balance between moving forward in our advocacy and preventing the erosion of our previous gains fuelled by the anti-rights movement and the growth of right-wing populism.

For the first time since the COVID-19 pandemic hit, we saw an increase in the number of reported HIV-related prosecutions: 86 cases in 18 countries. This compares with 49 cases in 16 countries last year and 54 cases in 20 countries in 2021. This year, as in previous years, the highest number of case reports come from the EECA region (Uzbekistan and Russia), followed by the United States (10 cases – a significant decrease) and the United Kingdom (5 cases – a worrying increase).

It is possible that we were seeing more case reports because there were actually more cases, but we must always consider these reported cases to be illustrative of what is likely to be a far more widespread, poorly documented use of criminal law against people living with HIV.

Although many people arrested or prosecuted were heterosexual men, we also saw a range of intersectional identities impacted by HIV criminalisation – particularly sex workers who may also have been transgender and/or people of colour and/or with a migration background.  It is clear that a convergence of multiple levels of criminalisation, discrimination and other vulnerabilities leads to over-policing of the bodies and behaviours of people living with HIV.

LATIN AMERICA

Some of the most exciting and promising developments in 2023 came from Latin America. In June, Belize repealed its HIV-specific criminal law, enacted in 2001 but never applied, primarily to enable the country to be certified as having eliminated vertical transmission. And in August, Costa Rica’s People Living with HIV organisation pushed back against a parliamentarian’s proposal to reinstate an HIV criminalisation law.

It’s also clear that sustained advocacy by civil society in Mexico – which began in earnest when the HIV JUSTICE WORLDWIDE coalition supported the creation of the Mexican network in 2017 – is really making a difference. In March, the state of Nayarit repealed its infectious disease law that had mostly applied to people with HIV. The district of Mexico City is on its way to repeal a similar law. And another Mexican state, Baja California Sur, modernised the wording of the same law to attempt to destigmatise it, by removing the concept that communicable diseases are only prosecutable if sexually transmitted.

In November, a proposal for a new HIV criminalisation law in the state of Puebla was withdrawn following criticisms from HIV and human rights organisations, and a month later there are now proposals to reform the existing law. And civil society pressure to remove the federal HIV criminalisation law on constitutional grounds may have led to Mexico’s first trans congresswomen advocating for the repeal of the law in parliament. Given Mexico’s rights-based approach to SRHR – the country decriminalised abortion earlier this year – at least one of these repeal pathways are likely to succeed next year.

NORTH AMERICA

In the United States, we continued to see a marked reduction in the number of cases as the movement to repeal or modernise HIV criminalisation laws continued to grow due to ongoing, sustained advocacy by networks of people living with HIV with support from philanthropic funders as well as federal and state political leaders and public health institutions. Although, no states fully repealed their HIV-specific laws in 2023, and law reform proposals in Indiana, Minnesota, and North Dakota failed to pass, there were some important victories in Tennessee. Here, both law reform and strategic litigation bore fruit, the former by removing mandatory sex offender registration for those convicted under the HIV law, and the latter resulting in a ruling that Tennessee’s ‘aggravated prostitution’ statute violated the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Canada – another former global HIV criminalisation leader – continued to report fewer cases, with just one new reported case in 2023. As in the United States, this is the result of many years of sustained advocacy, although the federal government has still not responded formally to its 2022 public consultation on substantially reforming its approach to HIV criminalisation. The Canadian Coalition to Reform HIV Criminalization, led by HIV JUSTICE WORLDWIDE coalition partner, the HIV Legal Network, issued a strong statement on World AIDS Day calling for action.

AFRICA

Unlike previous years, the only country on the African continent with reported new HIV criminalisation cases in 2023 was Kenya, where lawmakers are still planning to follow Uganda in enacting even more criminalisation aimed at LGBTI people – as are Botswana, Ghana, and Niger. Following the December 2022 dismissal of the constitutional challenge to Kenya’s HIV-specific provisions in the Sexual Offences Act, there are plans to appeal and to continue to lobby for change.

Strategic litigation led by KELIN was ultimately successful in establishing that women living with HIV possess the inherent right to make informed choices regarding their reproductive decisions following a nine-year process, so sustained advocacy – and patience – may be required. Patience may also be needed in South Africa where long-awaited sex work decriminalisation was further postponed, although parliament did agree to clear COVID lockdown criminal records. Elsewhere, another positive development in the region was the repeal of Mauritius’ colonial-era sodomy law which means that the number of nations with laws against gay sex has now fallen to 66.

EASTERN EUROPE / CENTRAL ASIA

People living with HIV in the EECA region continue to face multiple challenges. In just the first six months of 2023, there were 20 cases of alleged “intentional HIV transmission” to sexual partners in Uzbekistan’s Tashkent region – the highest HIV criminalisation case count anywhere in the world. The majority of those prosecuted appeared to be women. This comes as no surprise given that an analysis of cases and laws across the ECCA region by our HIV JUSTICE WORLDWIDE partners, the Eurasian Women’s Network on AIDS (EWNA), found that women living with HIV bear the brunt of the “legalised stigma” of HIV criminalisation in the region.

One of the main reasons for the high number of cases in the EECA region is the integration of HIV criminalisation within healthcare policies: newly diagnosed individuals are made to sign a paper acknowledging their legal liability for HIV prevention often without receiving adequate or meaningful counselling or support. In Russia – where the second highest number of cases were reported – a study found that most HIV clinicians support HIV criminalisation, and in Kazakhstan it was revealed that 1-in-1000 people newly diagnosed with HIV in 2022 filed a police report blaming someone else for their infection.

The legal environment for people living with HIV in Russia continues to worsen, as it does for all its citizens, especially LGBTI people – with trans women sex worker migrants facing the brunt of the Russia’s anti-LGBT “propaganda” law. And in Tajikistan, homophobic and HIV-phobic law enforcement practices resulted in ten gay men being arrested Dushanbe on suspicion of “infecting 86 people with HIV.” The only positive news for the region came from Ukraine, where a new protective HIV law was adopted earlier this year, although criminal liability for HIV exposure or transmission remains a possibility.

WESTERN EUROPE

December saw two contrasting developments in Western Europe. Just as Ireland’s Supreme Court overturned the country’s first-ever sexual HIV criminalisation case  – partially based on now well-established limitations of scientific evidence being able to prove who infected whom – a lower court in Latvia convicted someone of alleged HIV transmission for the first time.

And although in the United Kingdom, a long-awaited update to the Crown Prosecution Service’s guidance now unequivocally states that an undetectable viral load stops HIV transmission, five HIV criminalisation cases still took place, along with a highly publicised civil case. Per capita, this meant that in 2023 the UK had a five-fold incidence of reported HIV criminalisation cases compared to the United States!

ASIA PACIFIC

Singapore continues to lead the Asia Pacific region with four reported HIV criminalisation cases in 2023: one for blood donation, two for biting, and one involving a transgender sex worker for alleged HIV exposure. Although South Korea’s constitutional court ended up declaring most of its HIV criminalisation provisions constitutional, their recognition that U=U suggests the law may evolve to recognise up-to-date science.

Although ending HIV criminalisation cannot rely on science alone, it can help limit unjust prosecutions while we work to end the HIV-related stigma, discrimination and structural inequalities that drive criminalisation.

BRINGING SCIENCE TO JUSTICE

This year, we celebrated five years since the publication of the ‘Expert Consensus Statement on the Science of HIV in the Context of Criminal Law’ with our ‘Five-Year Impact Report’ and an HIV Justice Live! webshow focused on bringing science to justice. Both proved that the Expert Consensus Statement remains relevant, accurate and extremely useful.

Given this delicate balance between moving forward and preventing the erosion of hard-won rights there is still so much more to do to reach the global target of fewer than 10% of countries with punitive laws and policies that negatively impact the HIV response.

LET COMMUNITIES LEAD

To ensure that communities continue to lead, and to further enable the building of an intersectional movement to end punitive laws and policies that impact people living with HIV in all diversity, we made our online platform for e-learning and training, the HIV Justice Academy, more widely available in Spanish and Russian, to complement our English and French versions.

In 2023, the HIV Justice Academy was visited by several thousand learners from 110 countries. We were thrilled to learn that graduates of our flagship HIV Criminalisation Online Course told us that they really benefitted from the course, finding it relevant, interesting, and engaging.

RENEWED FOCUS FOR 2024

We will begin 2024 with a renewed focus to achieving HIV justice as we continue to:

  • build the evidence base by gathering relevant data and information from around the world. 
  • raise awareness across multiple platforms and communities of the harms of HIV criminalisation. 
  • create, collate, and disseminate advocacy tools and resources to foster more effective responses to damaging laws, policies, and media narratives; and
  • bring individuals and national, regional, and global networks and organisations together, as part of the HIV JUSTICE WORLDWIDE coalition, to catalyse change.

EECA Judges’ Forum on HIV, Human Rights and the Law meet to discuss challenges presented by punitive laws

Judges from Eastern Europe and Central Asia gather in Moldova to discuss the region’s pressing issues around health, HIV, human rights and the law

The Eastern European and Central Asian Judges’ Forum on HIV, Human Rights and the Law – an independent body of judges from the region yearly convened by UNDP – starts their two-day meeting on 27 November 2023 in Chișinău, Moldova, to discuss challenges that punitive laws present to the full realization of the rights of people living with and affected by HIV.

The Forum, started in Moldova five years ago, returns this year to address challenges that remain in the region, as well as to highlight the progress made by countries like Moldova in addressing them.

“The Ministry of Justice is taking all measures to bring criminal policy in line with European standards, ensuring human rights is a priority. To this end, sanctions have been adjusted in criminal law with the aim of humanizing and clearly distinguishing cases of drug use from drug dealing. In addition, it is proposed to diversify the penalties in order to promote alternatives to imprisonment. Improving the human rights protection system remains a priority for the Ministry of Justice, and each of us understands that we must apply a proactive policy in the area of combating drug use, enhancing the role of the judiciary in ensuring the rights of this category of people are reconceptualized,” noted Veronica Mihailov-Moraru, Minister of Justice of the Republic of Moldova.

“At the core of our discussions during the Forum are real people – individuals whose lives and rights depend on the decisions made within the walls of courtrooms. It is our responsibility to protect these rights, to champion the cause of justice, and to ensure that no one is left behind in our fight against HIV,” said Andrea Cuzyova, UNDP Deputy Resident Representative to the Republic of Moldova.

The Eastern Europe and Central Asia (EECA) region is among three in the world where HIV infections and deaths are still on the rise. Fifteen countries in the region still criminalize HIV transmission, and many others, in law or practice, restrict access to life-saving services for key populations. People who use drugs are still the most impacted by HIV in the region; rigid drug policies often drive people away from vital health services. This exacerbates the HIV epidemic and facilitates high incarceration rates, contributing to a burgeoning tuberculosis epidemic and other health and social challenges for individuals upon release.

Prior to the war in Ukraine, labor migration has been a significant driver of HIV and TB epidemics in the EECA region, and currently internally displaced persons and migrants have limited access to vital health services, including HIV and tuberculosis, and legal support. HIV decriminalization and pro-active drug policy reforms are long overdue in the region.

“We now have evidence that countries with more enabling societal and legal environments where punitive policies are replaced with those that put people and health at the center and protect rights to non-discrimination are associated with bigger declines in HIV incidence,” said Vera Ilyenkova, Adviser, Key populations & Communities engagement in UNAIDS Regional Support Team for Eastern Europe and Central Asia. UNAIDS report this year focused on the opportunities that countries can take for legal reform and innovation to stem HIV epidemics.

“A large number of incarcerated people across the Eastern European and Central Asian region are serving prison terms for drug related offenses, in many cases simple possession with no harm to others. It is time to reflect on whether this is an effective measure, whether it is the right public investment, whether it is justified and proportionate. I invite all participants to the Judges forum to consider that the answer to these questions is NO and that drug policies in the region should undergo significant reforms” said Prof. Michel Kazatchkine, Special Advisor to the World Health Organization Regional Office for Europe (WHO/Europe)

The role of judges in addressing health and other social issues is critical. The justice system can either impede or facilitate social and public health efforts to provide equitable health care, thus ultimately contributing to the achievement of universal health coverage. In addition, an independent, impartial, accountable and professional judicial system, as well as the protection of fundamental rights, is increasingly a topic of discussion in the region, where some countries are candidates for EU accession.

“Our region is presented with many challenges and as judges we are also impacted. The choice is ours – not to pay attention to the issues or to ask hard questions and to apply the law with the view of protections of human rights, so that no one is left behind,” said Sharof Alanazarzoda, Judge of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Tajikistan and member of the Forum Steering Committee.

The two-day forum includes judges from Ukraine, Georgia, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Moldova; high-level officials from Moldova, Eastern and Central European and Central Asian Commission on Drug Policy; development partners and civil society leadership from the region and from Moldova. Topics addressed will include HIV decriminalization, EU integration, drug policy reform, migration and fostering collaboration between civil society, UN, and the judiciary in achieving high-level targets on HIV elimination.

UK: New Crown Prosecution Service guidance on cases of alleged HIV transmission states that undetectable viral load stops HIV transmission

U=U acknowledged in prosecutors’ guidance in England and Wales

Krishen Samuel

New Crown Prosecution Service guidance on cases of alleged HIV transmission state that an undetectable viral load stops HIV transmission. While the previous guidance stated that a person’s viral load at the time may provide a defence because it was believed to reduce transmission risk, it did not clearly set out the medical consensus is that this risk is zero. Cases should no longer be taken to court in England and Wales when a person has an undetectable viral load and is aware that Undetectable = Untransmittable (U=U).

In England, Wales and Northern Ireland, concealing or lying about living with HIV is not viewed as a sexual offence. This is unlike jurisdictions that have specific HIV non-disclosure laws. However, reckless or intentional transmission of an STI is viewed as a form of grievous bodily harm that can result in criminal charges.

Since 2019, the National AIDS Trust has been working with the Crown Prosecution Services (CPS) to update their guidance to accord with medical knowledge regarding the lack of risk if someone has an undetectable HIV viral load. The latest guidance issued last week clearly specifies the conditions that must be met for a charge of this nature to occur. Importantly, this only applies to sexual transmission and not to other modes, such as needle-sharing.

Prior to seeking out expert witnesses to rule out other sources of infection, and to confidently ascertain if one person transmitted HIV to another, prosecutors need to work through a series of conditions that need to be met for there to be sufficient evidence for a criminal charge. Gathering information for these conditions involves police investigation and will likely be intrusive for both the accuser and the accused.

To begin with, the person making the accusation must have an STI that amounts to a form of grievous bodily harm. While this harm need not be either permanent or dangerous, it should require treatment and have lasting consequences. Based on previous court judgements, the two STIs that qualify are HIV and herpes. Since 2001, there have been more than 30 people convicted of reckless HIV transmission, one of intentional HIV transmission and one of recklessly transmitting herpes in England and Wales. The rest of this article will focus on cases related to HIV.

The second condition is that the accused must have HIV at the time of having sex with the accuser. This can be proven in several ways, including via medical records, during interrogation or upon the discovery of medications such as antiretrovirals.

The next condition is that the accused knew they had HIV at the time of sex. If they were unaware of their status, and only diagnosed or became aware after having sex with the accuser, there would be insufficient evidence to meet this condition. If the couple had sex multiple times, and the accused was diagnosed or became aware during this period, it would similarly be difficult to prove that they knew their status at the time of transmission. Additionally, it could be the accuser who transmitted HIV to the accused, instead of the other way around. Thus, prosecutors need to carefully consider dates of diagnoses and other relevant evidence.

This condition is not completely straightforward: there is the possibility that the accused was not necessarily diagnosed with HIV but could otherwise have known they had it (through showing clear symptoms, or transmission to other sexual partners, for instance).

The fourth condition is central to building the prosecution’s case: the person living with HIV must have intended to transmit it or knew there was a risk and went on to have sex with the accuser anyway. Intentional cases of HIV transmission are few and far between.

For most cases – those related to reckless transmission – there are several important factors to consider. If the person living with HIV believed that they took reasonable steps to prevent transmission, such as using a condom or having an undetectable viral load, this could be a defence against this condition. However, as transmission can occur even in the instance that reasonable steps are taken, the central question is whether the accused believed they were putting the other person at a significant risk of HIV infection.

Here, a range of factors need to be considered, including what the accused was told about prevention, their level of infectiousness, their knowledge of how treatment works, whether they understood the information, if they ejaculated inside their partner and the number of sexual encounters. The possibility that inadequate information was provided by the medical practitioner also needs to be considered.

Importantly, the updated guidance specifically references an undetectable viral load. It acknowledges that a person living with HIV with a known undetectable viral load cannot be seen to recklessly transmit the virus if they were relying on their undetectable status as a means of preventing infection. Here, it is crucial to determine if the person living with HIV was undetectable at the time of sex, or whether they believed that they were, based on both viral load tests and consultations with their doctor.

While there is no legal obligation for the person living with HIV to inform their sexual partners of their HIV status, if the accuser consented to sex when they knew their partner had HIV, evidence of this knowledge is a defence against a reckless transmission charge.

The final condition is that the accused (and nobody else) in fact infected the accuser with HIV. The guidance acknowledges that this condition may be challenging to prove, especially in cases where a person has multiple sexual or needle-sharing partners. It is also intrusive and can require a great deal of investigation, time and expert evidence. Thus, this step should only be undertaken when the previous conditions are confidently met. If the prosecution cannot rule out the possibility that the infection came from another sexual or needle-sharing partner, there is insufficient evidence to meet this condition and therefore to prosecute, regardless of whether the preceding steps could be proven.

In the instance that expert evidence is required to prove that the accused infected the accuser, the guidance mentions methods such as phylogenetic analysis. It correctly states that this form of evidence may prove with certainty that the accused did not infect the accuser, but not that they did – as both people could have acquired the genetically similar virus from a third person. Additionally, recency assays can be used to determine whether an HIV infection is recent or longstanding, which can form part of the evidence. There is currently no objective scientific method to determine that one person transmitted HIV to another with complete certainty.

The National AIDS Trust has commended the updated guidance, as it is notable that it aligns with current scientific understanding. However, they also acknowledged that HIV criminalisation remains inherently problematic.

“We believe treating the reckless transmission of HIV as a criminal issue does more harm than good and does not result in reduced transmissions or a greater public understanding of HIV,” they say. “The updates to the guidance can go some way to ensure that cases are handled sensitively and consider the facts around HIV today. It’s essential that the CPS continue open dialogue with people living with HIV, community organisations and clinicians to ensure that the guidance reflects the most up to date evidence and that it is supporting good practice.”

References

The Crown Prosecution Service. Intentional or reckless sexual transmission of infection. Published online 29 March 2023.

2022 in review: A turning point for HIV justice?

Looking back on all that happened in 2022, we are cautiously optimistic that 2022 will be seen as a turning point in the global movement to end HIV criminalisation. We celebrated promising developments in case law, law reform and policy in many countries and jurisdictions over the past year, building on the momentum of 2021. Although there is much more work yet to do, it’s clear that progress is being made — thanks primarily to the leadership of people living with HIV.

Continuing a trend that began two years ago, overall there seems to have been a decline in the number of HIV-related prosecutions. This year we identified media reports of 49 new HIV criminalisation cases in 16 countries plus seven US states. This compares to 54 new cases in 20 countries last year (which was still fewer than reported in previous years). This year, the highest number of case reports came from Russia, followed by the United States (with multiple cases in the state of Florida), and France. 

It is possible that we are seeing fewer media reports because there are actually fewer cases, but we must always consider these known cases to be illustrative of what is likely a more widespread, poorly documented use of criminal law against people living with HIV. The media, public health authorities and law enforcement may still be distracted by the global financial crisis precipitated by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the impact of COVID-19 — a pandemic that continues to disproportionately impact people living with HIV.

After being near the top in previous years, Belarus has been bumped off the ‘most cases’ list. Last year, the Belarus Investigative Committee reported 34 new HIV-related criminal cases. It’s highly likely that this year there were some (unreported) cases, but it’s also clear that the number of cases has been slowing down since 2020, possibly due to ongoing discussions with the government to limit the use of the criminal law.

Canada used to be a global leader in HIV criminalisation, but no new cases were reported this year. In fact, the only case reports from Canada were about the overturning of a conviction by the Ontario Court of Appeal after it accepted there was no realistic possibility of transmission as the accused woman had an undetectable viral load, and another Ontario Court of Appeal acquittal based on the accused man’s elite controller status. These positive rulings follow many years of sustained advocacy, which has also led to the federal government opening a public consultation on reforming the criminal law. The Canadian Coalition to Reform HIV Criminalization has welcomed this consultation as a first step to concrete action on law reform.

Earlier this year, Taiwan’s Supreme Court also recognised the prevention benefit of treatment by upholding the acquittal of a man with an undetectable viral load who was accused of alleged HIV exposure. But elsewhere in Asia, Singapore continues to unjustly prosecute gay men living with HIV under draconian laws, despite being celebrated for recently repealing their colonial-era law that criminalised sex between men. Singapore is also the world leader in prosecuting gay men for not disclosing a possible HIV risk before donating blood. That’s why we issued our Bad Blood report in September, which concludes that the criminalisation of blood donations by people with HIV is a disproportionate measure — the result of both HIV-related stigma and homophobia, and not supported by science.

In the United States, we continued to see a reduction in the number of states with HIV-specific criminal laws thanks to the ongoing advocacy by networks of people living with HIV supported by human rights and public health organisations. In 2022, Georgia modernised its law and New Jersey became the third US state to fully repeal its HIV-specific criminal law. President Biden again highlighted HIV criminalisation in his World AIDS Day proclamation stating that “outdated laws have no basis in science, and they serve to discourage testing and further marginalize HIV-positive people.” In October, the Presidential Advisory Council on HIV/AIDS unanimously passed an historic resolution on molecular HIV surveillance that will be critical to protecting the human rights and dignity of people living with HIV. But problematic new laws continue to be enacted despite strong opposition from civil society. In November, Pennsylvania’s Governor, Tom Wolf, signed into law an overly broad, unscientific statute that makes it a felony to pass on a communicable disease, including HIV, when someone “should have known” they had the disease.

There was also mixed news from the African continent. In March, Zimbabwe became the second African country to repeal its HIV-specific law (the Democratic Republic of Congo repealed its law in 2018). This victory is testament to the effectiveness of a multi-year, multi-stakeholder campaign that began with civil society advocates sensitising communities and parliamentarians, notably the Honourable Dr Ruth Labode, Chairperson of Parliamentary Portfolio Committee on Health and Child Care. She began pushing for a change in the law in 2018, having previously been in favour of the provision which she thought protected her female constituents. And in October, the Central African Republic also enacted a new HIV law that focused primarily on social protections for people living with HIV, without any criminalising provisions.

Also in October, the Lesotho High Court issued a positive judgment following a constitutional challenge to sections of the Sexual Offences Act that impose a mandatory death sentence on persons convicted of sexual offences if they were living with HIV.  Following interventions from members of the HIV JUSTICE WORLDWIDE coalition and others, the Court ruled that people living with HIV have the same right to life as all others — and commuted the sentence.

The news elsewhere on the continent, however, wasn’t so positive. After six years of waiting, a constitutional challenge to some of the most problematic, criminalising sections of Uganda’s HIV/AIDS Prevention and Control Act was dismissed outright in November. We are anxiously awaiting the ruling in a similar challenge in neighbouring Kenya. It was filed five years ago and has since been postponed several times. This year, we also lost Ugandan nurse and HIV criminalisation survivor, Rosemary Namubiru, who was a posthumous recipient of the Elizabeth Taylor Legacy Award at this year’s International AIDS Conference.

Women — who were accused in around 25% of all newly reported cases this year — also face criminal prosecution in relation to breastfeeding or comfort nursing, mostly across the African continent. In addition, women living with HIV continue to be threatened with punitive public health processes and child protection interventions for breastfeeding their children in multiple countries. That’s why this year we created the short film, Mwayi’s Story, to highlight the injustice and facilitate discussion about HIV and breastfeeding. We also worked with our HIV JUSTICE WORLDWIDE coalition partners to publish a paper in the peer-reviewed, open access journal Therapeutic Advances in Infectious Diseases to highlight these problematic and unjust approaches to women with HIV who breastfeed or comfort nurse.

This year, we learned from the Eurasian Women’s Network on AIDS, working with the Global Network of People Living with HIV, about how women living with HIV are both disproportionately impacted by HIV criminalisation across the Eastern Europe and Central Asia (EECA) region and also leaders in research, advocacy and activism against it. Their report illustrates how HIV criminalisation and gender inequality are intimately and inextricably linked. Case studies include a woman in Russia who was prosecuted for breastfeeding her baby and several women in Russia who were blackmailed by former partners who threatened to report them for alleged HIV exposure as a way to control, coerce, or abuse them.

The disproportionate impact of HIV criminalisation on women was also the focus of a World AIDS Day statement by the Organization of American States (OAS) calling on Member States to end HIV criminalisation. Earlier in the year, Argentina had enacted a new, comprehensive and non-punitive HIV, STI and TB law. 

Nevertheless, there is still so much more to do to reach the global target of fewer than 10% of countries with punitive laws and policies that negatively impact the HIV response. To keep up the momentum, we continued to produce reports and analysis — including our flagship Advancing HIV Justice 4: Understanding Commonalities, Seizing Opportunities — as well as contributed to peer-reviewed journal articles, such as So many harms, so little benefit in the Lancet HIV and Punishing vulnerability through HIV criminalization in the American Journal of Public Health. We’re also doing our best to ensure we change the media narrative on HIV criminalisation, including by contributing to The Guardian’s World AIDS Day podcast on HIV criminalisation.

Our greatest achievement this year was the creation of the HIV Justice Academy. We are very proud of this online platform for e-learning and training which we believe will be a catalyst in building the wider movement to end punitive laws and policies that impact people living with HIV in all their diversity. Already available in English and French, we’ll be launching in Spanish and Russian early next year.

Did we turn the corner in 2022? Only time will tell, but if there is one thing we know for sure it is that changing hearts and minds with respect to HIV criminalisation is a long road with many ups and downs along the way. We know that important progress was made in 2022 and that we begin 2023 with fresh analysis, new tools and a renewed spirit of solidarity.

Lesotho high court finds imposition of death sentence solely on the basis of HIV status unconstitutional

Court decision upholds that people living with HIV have the same right to life as all others

Joint news release from the Southern Africa Litigation Centre, AIDS and Rights Alliance for Southern Africa, Lesotho Network of People Living with HIV and AIDS, HIV Legal Network and HIV Justice Network

 

On 25 October 2022, the High Court of Lesotho in the case of MK v Director of Public Prosecutions and Others issued a judgment on a constitutional challenge to certain sections of the Sexual Offences Act that impose mandatory HIV testing on persons accused of sexual offences, and subsequently impose a death sentence on persons convicted of sexual offences solely based on their HIV-positive status.

The case was supported by the Southern Africa Litigation Centre (SALC), AIDS and Rights Alliance for Southern Africa (ARASA), HIV Legal Network – all members of HIV JUSTICE WORLDWIDE (HJWW) Steering Committee coordinated by the HIV Justice Network (HJN) – as well as Kenya Legal & Ethical Issues Network on HIV and AIDS (KELIN). Lesotho Network of People Living with HIV and AIDS (LENEPWHA) was admitted as Amicus Curiae. The petitioner and Amicus Curiae were represented by Advocate Molati, Advocate Mokhathali, Advocate Masaeso, Advocate Mohau (K.C) and Advocate Letuka.

The petitioner challenged the constitutionality of section 32(a)(vii) of the Sexual Offences Act which appeared to impose a mandatory death sentence on people convicted of sexual offences who were HIV-positive and were aware of their status. The petitioner also challenged section 30 of the Act, which requires mandatory HIV testing for persons arrested and charged under the Act. The petitioner argued that the imposition of a mandatory death sentence solely on the grounds of HIV status, and mandatory HIV testing upon arrest, breached the constitutional rights to life, equality and non-discrimination, equal protection of the law, privacy, and dignity and that they contribute to stigma against people living with HIV.

In a judgment written by Justice Makara, the High Court, sitting as a Constitutional Court, declared that section 32(a)(vii) of the Sexual Offences Act was unconstitutional to the extent that it imposes a death sentence solely on the basis of a person’s HIV status, as this was discriminatory and amounted to inhumane treatment. The Court said that people convicted of sexual offences should be sentenced according to the mitigating or aggravating circumstances rather than HIV status alone, and that the law should be interpreted so as not to require a mandatory death sentence for a person living with HIV.

“People living with HIV have the right to life, as all people do. Imposing the death penalty based on a person’s HIV-positive status is the most extreme form of discrimination possible. We welcome the Lesotho High Court’s decision to end this terrible human rights violation.” Edwin J Bernard, HIV Justice Network, global coordinator, HIV JUSTICE WORLDWIDE.

“While recognizing the serious impact of sexual violence, the judgment is an acknowledgment that the over-broad use of criminal laws and sanctions solely based on HIV status is unjust and not justified by a scientific and human-rights based approach” Maketekete Alfred Thotolo, Executive Director, LENEPWHA.

 

Download the pdf of the news release here

 

Advancing HIV Justice 4: new report highlights more successes, continued challenges

A new report published today (July 22nd 2022) by the HIV Justice Network (HJN) on behalf of HIV JUSTICE WORLDWIDE shows that the global movement to end HIV criminalisation continues to achieve remarkable successes, despite the many challenges that COVID-19 has brought.

Advancing HIV Justice 4: Understanding Commonalities, Seizing Opportunities provides a progress report of achievements and challenges in global advocacy against HIV criminalisation. The report generally covers a three year period ending 31 December 2021 where Advancing HIV Justice 3 ended. However, significant law reform developments that took place in the first quarter of 2022 are also included in report’s maps and analysis.

The successes

During the reporting period, four HIV criminalisation laws were repealed; another HIV criminalisation law was found to be unconstitutional; and six laws were ‘modernised’ (i.e. applied up-to-date science on HIV-related risk or harm and/or legal and human rights principles to limit the application of the law) five of which were in the United States.

In addition, we saw precedent-setting cases in four countries and policy recommendations or improvements in four further countries — all of which have the potential to limit the overly broad application of the law to people living with HIV based on HIV-positive status.

While legislative processes slowed down or stalled in some places due to COVID-19 diminishing capacity for advocacy, more HIV criminalisation laws were modernised or repealed in the United States than during any other time period, the realisation of a maturing PLHIV-led HIV decriminalisation movement that began a decade or more ago.

These outcomes were primarily due to sustained advocacy – most of it led by PLHIV networks working with allies – using a wide range of strategies. These are analysed in the report by HJN’s senior policy analyst, Alison Symington.

The challenges

However, too many HIV criminalisation cases and continued high numbers of HIV-related criminal laws continue to be of great concern, requiring more attention, co-ordinated advocacy, and funding.

Our global audit of HIV-related laws found that a total of 82 countries (111 jurisdictions) have criminal laws that are HIV-specific. Of those, we are aware of 52 jurisdictions in 35 countries that have applied their HIV-specific criminal laws.

Another 89 jurisdictions in 48 countries have applied non-HIV-specific, general criminal laws in an overly broad manner since the first prosecution in 1986.

Our case analysis shows that HIV criminalisation continues to disproportionately impact women, racial and ethnic minorities, migrants, gay men and other men who have sex with men, transgender people, and sex workers.

Although the total number of cases has diminished in some US states as well as in countries that were previously HIV criminalisation hotspots – Canada, Czech Republic, Norway, Sweden, and Zimbabwe – too many unjust prosecutions and convictions continue to be reported.

During the reporting period, we recorded 275 cases in HJN’s Global HIV Criminalisation Database. However, when we include case numbers from several Eastern European and Central Asian countries that provide official data, we estimate almost 700 criminal cases over the reporting period.

Notwithstanding the limitations of tabulating cases globally, the highest number of reported cases during the period covered by this report were in:

The report is available to download in English, French, Russian and Spanish. 

Acknowlegements

Advancing HIV Justice 4 was conceived and edited by HJN’s executive director, Edwin J Bernard, and HJN’s senior policy analyst, Alison Symington. Alison Symington researched and wrote all chapters except for ‘Global Overview’, which was researched and written by Edwin J Bernard, using data collected by Sylvie Beaumont and analysed by Tenesha Myrie.

Additional input was provided by: Gonzalo Aburto (The Sero Project), India Annamanthadoo (HIV Legal Network), Stephen Barris (Ex Aequo), Sophie Brion (International Community of Women Living with HIV), Janet Butler-McPhee (HIV Legal Network), Nyasha Chingore-Munazvo (AIDS and Rights Alliance for Southern Africa), Kenechukwu Esom (United Nations Development Programme), Elie Georges Ballan (The Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS – UNAIDS), Alfredo González (Hondureños Contra el SIDA), Julian Hows (HIV Justice Network), Deidre Johnson (Ending Criminalization of HIV and Overincarceration in Virginia Coalition), Cécile Kazatchkine (HIV Legal Network), Svitlana Moroz (Eurasian Women’s Network on AIDS), Immaculate Owomugisha Bazare (Uganda Network on Law Ethics and HIV/AIDS), Stephen Page (Nevada HIV Modernization Coalition), Cedric Pulliam (Ending Criminalization of HIV and Overincarceration in Virginia Coalition), Florence Riako Anam (Global Network of People Living with HIV), Mianko Ramaroson (The Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS – UNAIDS), Demario Richardson (Missouri HIV Justice Coalition), Sean Strub (The Sero Project), and Alexandra Volgina (Global Network of People Living with HIV).

We would especially like to acknowledge the courage and commitment of the growing number of people living with HIV and allies around the world who are challenging laws, policies and practices that inappropriately regulate and punish people living with HIV. Without them, this report — and the victories reported herein — would not have been possible.

We gratefully acknowledge the financial contribution of the Robert Carr Fund to this report.

Mwayi’s Story: a short film about courage,
women’s rights, and HIV justice

Today we are delighted to share with the world a new short film, Mwayi’s Story, produced by the HIV Justice Network on behalf of HIV JUSTICE WORLDWIDE.

Mwayi’s Story is a story about courage, and about women standing up for their rights. The film is based on the story of a woman in Malawi who was prosecuted for briefly breastfeeding another woman’s baby and the subsequent successful advocacy in Malawi to prevent an HIV criminalisation statute being passed.

Ultimately, Mwayi’s Story is about HIV justice!

We wanted to produce a film that was authentic to the lived experience of an HIV criminalisation survivor but without making her go through the trauma of having to relive the experience by telling her story again.

HJN’s video, visuals and webshows consultant, Nicholas Feustel, who produced and directed the film, said: “Since this story is primarily about mothers and children, we decided to produce the film in the style of an illustrated children’s storybook. We searched for a female illustrator working in sub-Saharan Africa and found the wonderful Phathu Nembilwi of Phathu Designs.

“For our narrator, we found Upile Chisala, a storyteller from Malawi known for her short and powerful poems.”

The script by HJN’s Senior Policy Analyst, Alison Symington, was written in consultation with our Supervisory Board member, Sarai Chisala-Tempelhoff, a Malawian human rights lawyer and legal researcher with over 15 years of experience in women’s access to justice.

We also worked with our HIV JUSTICE WORLDWIDE partners, Southern Africa Litigation Centre (SALC) and AIDS and Rights Alliance for Southern Africa (ARASA), to ensure that the film was relevant to their ongoing advocacy in the region. In fact, Mwayi’s Story had its world premiere last week on Zambia’s Diamond TV, in anticipation of a verdict in a similar breastfeeding case.

The film will be shown in a number of forums over the next few months, including at AIDS 2022. It will soon be subtitled in French, Russian and Spanish, and we are also looking for partners to translate additional subtitles if they think the film can be useful in their own advocacy. If you’re interested you can get in touch with us at breastfeeding@hivjustice.net. We will send you the English subtitle file for translation. After you return the file to us, we will upload it to YouTube.

Mwayi’s Story is part of our ongoing work to end the criminalisation of women living with HIV for breastfeeding and comfort nursing, including our Breastfeeding Defence Toolkit. It is our goal to collaborate with advocates, researchers, service providers, organisations and community members around the world to raise awareness and prevent further unjust prosecutions against women living with HIV who breastfeed or comfort nurse. We are grateful to both the Elizabeth Taylor AIDS Foundation and the Robert Carr Fund for their financial support for this work, and this film.