Mexico: Human Rights Commission files motion before Supreme Court arguing Veracruz law criminalising 'wilful transmission' of HIV and STIs is unconstitutional

Because the amendment to Article 158 of the Criminal Code of Veracruz, called “contagion” criminalizes the transmission of sexually transmitted infections, and establishes a sentence ranging from 6 months to 5 years in prison and a fine of up to 50 days’ pay for those who “willfully” infecting another person sexually transmitted disease, a contravention of Article 1 of the Constitution of the United States Mexicans, at 24 of the American Convention on Human Rights and 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the National Commission on Human Rights (CNDH) filed a motion before the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation.

That article, which provides between these infections to HIV and human papillomavirus, he was published in the Official Journal of Veracruz on 1 December and, according to the CNDH, is discriminatory because it “generates a differentiation unnecessary and unjustified that becomes discriminatory. ”

This, because, argues the CNDH, the new content of the article “generates a discriminatory treatment in Subject to the people, and that criminalize putting willful in danger of disease transmission, generates two assumptions: that it is sexually transmitted infections and cases of serious disease. ”

According to the document, this situation leads to “different treatment for sexually transmitted infections with respect any other illness, by the than is rock specifically the condition health perpetrator when he suffers STDs, generating so a distinction legal between Who suffer a disease acquired by sexually transmitted Y those with any other disease acquired through diverse. ”

In addition, it is emphasized that the amendment does not meet the objective of preventing argued transmission of STIs against women and girls, finding themselves in vulnerable situations, but caused a differentiation based on the condition of true kind from infections, in East case from sexually transmitted, and describe them as serious, a fact that is not real, because not all infections of this court are serious.

Thus, the declaration of unconstitutionality of the article is requested and all those rules than are related.

Thus, the CNDH responded to the request of the Multisectoral Group on HIV / AIDS and STIs of Veracruz and other civil society organizations, which have stated that “the international guidelines on HIV and Human Rights based on evidence scientific point to legislate and punish not prevent new infections or reduce women’s vulnerability and what we do accomplish is a negative impact on public health and human rights. ”

It is expected that in the coming weeks the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation attracts unconstitutionality for discussion and analysis.

UK: Law Commission considers HIV criminalisation in great depth, but recommends no change for HIV/STI prosecutions in England & Wales, pending a wider review

Following a scoping consultation which ran from autumn 2014 to spring 2015, the Law Commission (of England and Wales) has now published its report containing their final recommendations to the UK Government.

It recommends the adoption of a modified version of a 1998 draft Bill to replace the outdated Offences Against the Person Act 1861.

However, whereas the 1998 Bill only criminalised intentional disease transmission, their recommendation is to keep the existing law relating to HIV and other serious diseases ((based on Dica and Konzani and clarified through prosecutorial policy and guidelines) which criminalises reckless as well as intentional disease transmission, pending a wider review.

Both in the scoping consultation paper and in this report, we have considered the criminalisation of disease transmission at great length. Many consultees supported fundamental reform of the law in this area. However, we conclude that the issues were more complex than time or space allowed without delaying the main aim of reforming the law of offences against the person. For this reason, we suggest modifications to the draft Bill to preserve the present position pending a wider review involving more input from healthcare professionals and bodies.

The full report, (chapter six: ‘transmission of disease’ is excerpted in full below), includes a detailed discussion of their proposals and the responses of 35 concerned stakeholders (most of them experts in law, public health and human rights. The HIV Justice Network was one of them, and our opinions are quoted throughout.)

The entire report is of interest not just to those working on this issue in England & Wales, but globally. It rehearses, in great detail, nearly all of the arguments for and against HIV (and other STI) prosecutions, and finds that “there is a strong body of opinion, especially in the medical profession and groups concerned with HIV and sexually transmissible infections, that the transmission of these diseases should never be criminal unless done intentionally.”

The report helpfully summarises the five main arguments against overly broad HIV criminalisation:

(1) an offence of reckless transmission encourages people to choose not to be tested, so as not to have the awareness of risk that might constitute recklessness;

(2) it discourages openness with (and by) medical professionals, because they may have to give evidence against their patients;

(3) it encourages people to think that disclosure of HIV status is always a duty, and that if a potential partner has not mentioned his or her status then he or she is not infected;

(4) because of the difficulty of proving transmission, the existence of the offence leads to very wide-ranging and intrusive investigations affecting a great many people, out of all proportion to the small number who will be found deserving of prosecution; and

(5) the whole topic of HIV/AIDS is affected by an atmosphere of fear (often irrationally so), and there is still an undesirable stigma against people.

Nevertheless, although the report states that “it would be preferable to revert to the law as it stood in 1998” when prosecutions were not possible and to use the draft 1998 Bill as it stands (which would only criminalise the intentional transmisison of disease), it comes to a more conservative conclusion.

The discussion of this issue has almost exclusively concerned the transmission of disease by consensual sexual intercourse, and the transmission of HIV in particular. (Also, most of the evidence for the harmful effects of criminalisation is drawn from countries where there are specific offences concerned with HIV and STIs, and may not be relevant to the use of general offences of causing injury.) The same reasoning may well not apply to other diseases and other means of transmitting them, but the draft Bill excludes disease as a whole.

For these reasons, on the evidence we have we do not feel justified in recommending a change to the position in existing law, in which the reckless transmission of disease is in principle included in an offence of causing harm. If there is to be a change, this should follow a wider review which compares the position in different countries and gives full consideration to the transmission of diseases other than by sexual means.

Of note, and of global relevance, following a great deal of discussion (and a broad range of consultation responses) regarding whether not to create an HIV/STI-specific law and/or broaden the scope of the current law to include non-disclosure and/or potential or perceived exposure, the Law Commission is clear.

We do not recommend the creation of specific offences concerned with disease transmission, either in relation to disease in general or in relation to HIV and STIs in particular: this too would require a wider review of all the available evidence. Nor do we recommend an offence of putting a person in danger of contracting a disease, or an offence of failing to disclose an infection to a sexual partner.

Law Commission Scoping Report: TRANSMISSION OF DISEASE (November 2015)

Is Louisiana's 'AIDS exposure' statute outdated? Advocates say it needs an update

Richard Covington of Baton Rouge was accused earlier this year of breaking into the house of someone who apparently owed him money and then fighting the resident. During the scuffle, Covington allegedly bit the man’s arm.

Coalition Pushes To Soften HIV Laws In California

A coalition including the American Civil Liberties Union and Equality California have joined together in an effort to change certain state laws they say criminalize people living with HIV. At a forum held in Fresno last week, a dozen activist and medical professionals talked about a number of goals including reducing the penalty for intentionally spreading HIV from a felony to a misdemeanor.

“We believe the punishment is not proportionate to the crime,” says Craig Pulsipher, with the AIDS Project Los Angeles.

“I would just point to similar offenses that are felony in California statutes. This puts intentional transmission of HIV on par with voluntary manslaughter and so we really believe a misdemeanor is sufficient consequence,” he says.

The group also wants to repeal a handful of laws including being charged with a felony for soliciting sex while knowingly having HIV. In this case, the law doesn’t require any sexual contact or transmission of HIV just the act of soliciting while being positive. Other laws make it a felony for HIV positive people to donate blood or breast milk. In many cases, people convicted under these laws could face jail time.

Dr. Simon Paul with Community Regional Medical Center specializes treating those with HIV and AIDS in the Central Valley. He says these laws aren’t up to date with modern science.

“A lot of these things are crime even if no harm was done,” Paul says. “The fact that if you have HIV, and if you sleep with someone you’re practically at zero risk if you’re on treatment. The way the laws are written now it’s just as bad as if the person had HIV in the 80’s and had no treatment. That’s the part to me seems the craziest.”

Today people living with HIV can take a pill on a daily basis to reduce the amount of the virus in their body to minimal levels. Paul says this makes the patient highly unlikely to pass the virus to someone else.

With the current state laws dealing with HIV, a person can only be convicted of charges if they are aware of their status. Paul says this creates unintended consequences.

“These laws make people less likely to get tested and into care which is the way you’ll actually get HIV to decrease. I think the laws are passed out of fear and not helpful at this point,” he says.

In Fresno County alone, only around half of those living with HIV are linked intro treatment. And there many that don’t know their status.

Many advocates like Pulsipher say these laws actually discourage people from getting tested.

“Some of these sites that specifically talk about HIV criminalization laws, one of the pieces of advice they give is: the best way to not be prosecuted under these statutes is to not know their HIV status. So that’s the exact opposite of what we would like to do. We want to encourage people to know their status.”

The coalition is hosting forums throughout the state and they’re working on a bill they plan to introduce next year in Sacramento.

Uganda: Community Health Alliance Uganda (CHAU) board chairman, Dr Stephen Watiti calls for repeal of clauses on disclosure, mandatory testing and transmission in HIV and AIDS Prevention and Control Act

Community Health Alliance Uganda (CHAU) board chairman, Dr Stephen Watiti, has called for an amendment of the 2014 HIV and AIDS Prevention and Control Act.

Watiti, who was speaking at the launch of CHAU’s 2016-2020 Strategic Plan last week in Kampala, wants clauses on disclosure, mandatory testing and intentional transmission repealed.

CHAU is one of the local non-governmental organizations (NGOs) involved in anti-HIV/Aids campaigns in the country. Enacted last year amidst protests from civil society and activists, the HIV and AIDS Prevention and Control Act criminalizes intentional transmission of HIV, enforces mandatory testing and requires spouses to disclose results to their partners, among others.

“In most of our communities if a woman tested positive and told her husband as stipulated in this law, it sparks domestic violence and stigmatization. So, my appeal is to review and scrap such clauses,” said Watiti, also plans to join elective politics in his bid to push for the aforesaid changes in parliament next year.

He also noted that it would be difficult to prove whether someone set out to intentionally infect their partners in a love affair.

“Preventing new infections should be a responsibility of both HIV positive and negative people,” Watiti argued, adding that testing should be voluntarily because making it mandatory is a violation of human rights.

His comments were directed to chief guest at the function, Dr Chris Baryomunsi, the state minister for health in charge of general duties and also MP for Kinkiizi East.

In response, Baryomunsi assured guests the parliamentary health committee would consider such appeals upon reviewing the HIV/Aids Act and also address concerns about the NGO Bill, which many civil society activists claim is intended to curtail their work.

Noting that some NGOs such as CHAU have done a good job as government partners in the battle against HIV/Aids, Baryomunsi said they would consider progressive provisions to ensure work is not stifled.

Baryomunsi explained that the law is intended to clamp down on NGOs that registered to health-related work but deviate from their mandate along the way.

Baryomunsi lauded the organization for its work of supporting people living with HIV in 20 districts including Kayunga, Luweero, Nakasongola, Mukono, Wakiso, Kamuli, Mayuge, Mityana, Gulu and Mbarara.

CHAU also provides family planning and sexual reproductive health education services.

Sweden: HIV activists call for the abolition of the duty to disclose in line with scientific progress

The new knowledge we have today about the transfer risks, should contribute to a change in infectious disease control law design.

The duty to disclose for people living with HIV should be abolished as soon as possible, writes representatives from RFSL, RFSU and HIV Sweden.

HIV was included in the Swedish Communicable Diseases legislation in 1985. The purpose was to provide support for the measures it considered necessary to slow down the transmissions of HIV, an infection, they were convinced, that could become an epidemic out of control.

Despite the limited knowledge then available on HIV the Government noted in its preparatory work to the Act that: “If a cure is discovered meaning that infected people can become free of infection, the perception of infectiousness willl obviously change. It would also be the same if one could find that the infection, whether a cure is available or not, is not contagious in some periods “(Prop. 1985/86: 13).

In October 2013 the Public Health Agency launched its knowledge base “Infectiousness in treated HIV infection.” The Authority concluded that the risk of transmitting HIV through sexual contact when a condom is used, is almost non-existent.

The risk is also considered as very small if a condom is not used.

In Sweden, over 90 percent of those who received a hiv diagnosis are on effective treatment today. In accordance with the intentions that were in the preparatory work to the country legislation in 1985, the knowledge we now have about transmission risks, should contribute to a change in infectious disease control law design.

One of the positions that RFSL, RFSU and HIV Sweden usually get to explain is precisely why we believe that the so-called disclosure duties should be removed for people living with HIV.

The duty to disclose is one of several precautions that people living with HIV must follow under the current disease control legislation. The duty to disclose requires that people living with HIV must inform their sex partners of their HIV.

he duty to disclose takes the focus away from what is hiv prevention most central message: that all people in sexual encounters should take responsibility to protect themselves and their partners.

So under the legislation this responsibility rests with the party who knows about his/her HIV as the duty to disclose. This despite the fact that over 90 percent of those currently living with HIV are taking effective treatment and are exposing a sexual partner to an almost non-existent risk of HIV transmission.

It stands in stark contrast to the fact that in most cases, it is those who do not know they have HIV who transmit the virus to others. The highest risk of transmission comes from this undiagnosed population.

This group is of course under no obligation to disclose information about which they know nothing, and therefore does not have anything to tell. The duty to disclose is therefore counterproductive and contributes to the stigmatization of people living with HIV who know about their status.

RFSL, RFSU and HIV Sweden are calling for a revision of regulations of the 2004 Infectious Diseases Act and the abolition of the duty to disclose.

We have met with opposition within the authorities, medical officers, their lawyers and policymakers. Often we are subjected to the view that we do not fully understand how the law works and a belief that we want to bring HIV out of the Communicable Diseases Act. That is not the case.

We believe that HIV must be included in the Communicable Diseases Act from a prevention and treatment perspective. But we believe that the law can easily be designed in such a way that HIV, and any other relevant diseases, are excluded from a conduct that is counter-productive, which departs from Prevention key messages, which stigmatizes people living with HIV, and is not in line with the knowledge we have today about transmission risks.

To make it easier for policy makers and officials, we have in collaboration with lawyers developed an example of how Diseases Act may be formulated to overcome the misconceptions there may seem to be about our position. The example can be downloaded here.

It is now our hope that the government ensures that the revision of the Infectious Diseases Act be implemented promptly and that the duty to disclose for people living with HIV can thus be abolished in the near future.

Christian Antoni Möllerop

Vice ‘Union

RFSL

Kristina Ljungros

Chairman of the Federation

RFSU

Christina Franzen

President

HIV Sweden

—————————————–

Den nya kunskap vi i dag har om överföringsrisker, bör bidra till en förändring av smittskyddslagstiftningens utformning.

Informationsplikten för personer som lever med hiv bör avskaffas snarast, skriver representanter från RFSL, RFSU och Hiv-Sverige.

1985 inkluderades hiv i den svenska smittskyddslagstiftningen. Syftet var att ge stöd till de åtgärder man ansåg nödvändiga för att bromsa överföringarna av hiv, en infektion man då var övertygad om att kunde bli en epidemi utom all kontroll.

Trots den begränsade kunskap som då fanns om hiv konstaterade regeringen i förarbetena till lagen att: ”Om något botemedel upptäcks som innebär att den smittade kan bli smittfri, kommer detta självklart att ändra synen på när smittsamhet föreligger. Detsamma blir förhållandet om man skulle finna att infektionen, oavsett om något botemedel finns att tillgå eller ej, inte är smittsam i vissa perioder” (Prop. 1985/86:13).

I oktober 2013 lanserade Folkhälsomyndigheten kunskapsunderlaget “Smittsamhet vid behandlad hivinfektion”. Där slår myndigheten fast att risken för att överföra hiv genom sexuell kontakt vid välfungerande behandling, när kondom används, är närmast obefintlig.

Risken bedöms även som mycket liten om kondom inte används.

I Sverige har över 90 procent av de som fått en hivdiagnos en välfungerande behandling i dag. I enlighet med de intentioner som fanns i förarbetena till smittskyddslagstiftningen från 1985, måste därför den kunskap vi nu har om överföringsrisker, bidra till en förändring av smittskyddslagstiftningens utformning.

Ett av de ställningstaganden som RFSL, RFSU och Hiv-Sverige oftast får förklara är just varför vi anser att den så kallade informationsplikten borde tas bort för personer som lever med hiv.

Informationsplikten är en av flera förhållningsregler som personer som lever med hiv måste följa enligt den gällande smittskyddslagstiftningen. Informationsplikten kräver att den som lever med hiv ska informera sina sexpartners om sin hiv.

Informationsplikten tar bort fokus från det som är hivpreventionens mest centrala budskap: att samtliga personer i det sexuella mötet bär ansvaret för att skydda sig själv och sin partner.

Så som lagstiftningen är utformad vilar ansvaret på den av parterna som vet om sin hiv att informera. Detta trots att över 90 procent av dem som i dag lever med hiv har en välfungerande behandling och därmed utsätter sexpartners för en närmast obefintlig risk för hivöverföring.

Det står i stark kontrast till det faktum att det är de som inte vet om att de bär på hiv som överför viruset i de flesta fall till andra. Det är alltså dessa odiagnostiserade det finns en stor risk att få viruset överfört från.

För denna grupp gäller förstås ingen informationsplikt då de inget vet och därför heller inte har något att berätta. Informationsplikten är därför kontraproduktiv och den bidrar till att stigmatisera personer som lever med hiv och vet om sin status.

RFSL, RFSU och Hiv-Sverige har sedan informationsplikten lagreglerades 2004 jobbat för en översyn av smittskyddslagen och ett avskaffande av informationsplikten.

Vi har stött på patrull inom myndigheter, smittskyddsläkare, deras jurister och bland beslutsfattare. Ofta bemöts vi av en uppfattning om att vi inte helt har förstått hur lagen fungerar eller en övertygelse om att vi vill ta hiv ut ur smittskyddslagen. Så är inte fallet.

Vi anser att hiv måste ingå i smittskyddslagen ur ett preventions- och behandlingsperspektiv. Men vi anser att lagen enkelt kan utformas på så sätt att hiv, och eventuellt andra relevanta sjukdomar, undantas från de förhållningsregler som är kontraproduktiva, som frångår det som är preventionens centrala budskap, som stigmatiserar personer som lever med hiv, och som inte ligger i linje med den kunskap vi numera har om överföringsrisker.

För att underlätta för beslutsfattare och tjänstemän har vi i samarbete med jurister tagit fram ett exempel på hur smittskyddslagen kan formuleras för att råda bot på de missuppfattningar om vårt ställningstagande som kan synas finnas. Exemplet kan laddas ner här.

Det är nu vår förhoppning att regeringen ser till att en översyn av smittskyddslagen sker skyndsamt och att informationsplikten för personer som lever med hiv därmed kan avskaffas inom en nära framtid.

Christian Antoni Möllerop

Vice förbundsordförande

RFSL

Kristina Ljungros

Förbundsordförande

RFSU

Christina Franzén

Ordförande

Hiv-Sverige

Australia: Victoria’s HIV-specific criminal law, Section 19A, finally repealed today

In a joint media release, Living Positive Victoria and the Victorian AIDS Council have welcomed the passage of the Crimes Amendment (Repeal of Section 19A) Act 2015 by the Victorian Parliament. The Act repeals Australia’s only HIV-specific law criminalising the intentional transmission of HIV, section 19A of the Crimes Act 1958, which has been criticised for unfairly targeting and stigmatising people with HIV.

View the story “19A Repeal – Live Tweets from @paulkidd” on Storify

Live Tweets from Victoria’s Parliament today. To find out more about the five year campaign to repeal the law, read this blog post written for the HIV Justice Network by Paul Kidd, Chair of the HIV Legal Working Group.

The two organisations had called for the repeal of section 19A in the lead-up to the 2014 International AIDS Conference, held in Melbourne, as part of an advocacy effort designed to reduce the incidence of HIV-related criminal prosecutions in Victoria.

“Victoria has the unfortunate distinction of having had more HIV-related prosecutions than any other state, and until today had the only HIV-specific criminal law,” said Simon Ruth, Chief Executive Officer, Victorian AIDS Council. “Our organisations strongly believe that HIV should be treated as a health issue, and that criminal prosecutions should only be used in cases where transmission occurs and there is evidence the alleged perpetrator acted with intent.”

The use of the criminal law to control HIV has been roundly criticised by legal theorists, HIV experts and international agencies. The Joint United Nations Program on HIV/AIDS has called for HIV-specific criminal laws, like section 19A, to be repealed.

“Today we can be proud that Victoria has repealed its HIV-specific criminal law, and in doing so, reaffirmed its commitment to treating HIV as a public health issue and not a criminal justice issue. Government, community and industry need to work together if we are to meet our goal of eliminating HIV transmissions by 2020, and the multi-party support for repealing section 19A shows our legislators are listening and prepared to enact evidence-based policies,” said Brent Allan, Chief Executive Officer, Living Positive Victoria.

The repeal of section 19A will not legalise the intentional transmission of HIV, but will ensure that any allegation of intentional transmission is dealt with under general laws, the same as for other forms of injury. The campaign to repeal the laws highlighted the stigmatising effect of HIV criminalisation.

“Criminalising HIV transmission and exposure isn’t just ineffective as a method of prevention, it is actually counterproductive to our efforts because it perpetuates stigma,” said Paul Kidd, Chair of the HIV Legal Working Group. “We know the stigma around HIV is one of the biggest barriers to increasing testing and treatment, and enabling voluntary disclosure of HIV. Section 19A sent a false message that people with HIV are a danger to the community, and todays repeal shows the Parliament accepts that we are not.

“This is a law that was never needed, and should never have been enacted. It has not made Victorians safer, and in fact may have led to an increase in the number of people living with HIV. The whole Victorian community should be happy to see it go.”

The HIV Legal Working Group has been the recipient of GLOBE, VAC and Living Positive Victoria awards for its work on the repeal of section 19A. A community celebration of the repeal of section 19A is being planned and will be announced shortly.

In a blog post written exclusively for the HIV Justice Network, Paul Kidd highlights that although this battle has been won, the work against unjust prosecutions in Victoria is yet not over.

“Now that section 19A is gone, our work continues, he writes. “We still need to address the unacceptably high number of prosecutions for ‘HIV endangerment’ that occur in Victoria. We strongly believe we have a model that will deliver the right public health outcomes while safeguarding the public, without the use of expensive, ineffective and highly stigmatising criminal prosecutions. With the repeal of section 19A, our state government has recommitted itself to a health-based response to HIV, and we believe that gives us the best possible platform to continue our campaign for prosecutorial guidelines.”

Repealing Section 19A: How we got there, by Paul Kidd, Chair of the HIV Legal Working Group

Australia’s only HIV-specific criminal law, section 19A of the Crimes Act in the state of Victoria, has now been repealed. This is an exciting step forward for those of us working to turn around Victoria’s poor record on criminalisation of HIV. This blog entry outlines the process we used to achieve this historic reform.

This story starts just before the 2010 International AIDS Conference in Vienna, at the first-ever HIV criminalisation pre-conference meeting, co-organised by the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network, the Global Network of People Living with HIV (GNP+) and NAM (who host the HIV Justice Network). Attending this meeting and hearing about the incredible work being done in this area was the inspiration for starting a joint advocacy project to address the issue here in Victoria. The partners in that project are the two largest HIV organisations in our state, Living Positive Victoria and the Victorian AIDS Council.

Our objectives were to achieve a set of prosecutorial guidelines, on a similar model to those adopted by the Crown Prosecution Service for England and Wales, and the repeal of s 19A. Although our initial focus was on the guidelines, with the announcement that Melbourne would host the 2014 International AIDS Conference, we decided to shift our focus to the repeal of s 19A. We felt that by focusing on a law that was manifestly out of step with best practice, we could use the conference to embarrass our legislators into action. With a state election due three months after AIDS 2014, we felt confident we could make political headway with the issue.

Section 19A makes it a criminal offence to intentionally transmit a ‘very serious disease’, which is defined to mean only HIV. It carries a maximum 25-year prison sentence, making it one of the most serious crimes on the Victorian statute book. It was enacted in 1993, following a high-profile case in which a prison officer in NSW was stabbed with a hypodermic syringe, and a number of cases in which blood-filled syringes were used in armed robberies.

Although the law was passed, supposedly, to deal with this kind of ‘syringe bandit’ assault, in practice it has been applied exclusively against people accused of sexual transmission of HIV. Although only a handful of cases have ever been prosecuted (and none successfully), s 19A has often been charged, or used as a threat against people accused of reckless transmission or endangerment. Its presence on the statute book has sent an unwelcome and false signal that people with HIV are a danger to public safety.

Additionally, we were armed with a solid evidence base – particularly the reports of UNAIDS and the Global Commission on HIV and the Law, which specifically criticise HIV-specific laws like s 19A.

We made a point of telegraphing our intentions to the government and opposition political parties well ahead of the conference. We developed a policy brief setting out the case for repeal of the section, and sought dialogue with both parties in the months before the conference. We wanted to give them every opportunity, at a time when the eyes of the world would be on us, to take action that would generate international attention and goodwill.

Our approach to the government was initially rebuffed, with a curt reply that they had no intention of changing the law. The Labor opposition, which had opposed the law in 1993, was more welcoming and we were able to explain our position at a number of meetings leading up to the conference. We were unable to get a commitment for action, but we were confident that both sides knew what we were asking for.

We gathered together a strong coalition of supporting organisations who agreed to back our call. As well as the HIV sector, we had support from the broader civil sector (organisations focused on human rights, mental health, gay and lesbian rights) and from the legal sector, particularly the criminal bar. We had the backing of the AIDS 2014 chairs. We spent a good deal of time before the conference drafting talking points that enabled us to get our media messaging clear, and thinking about ways to get our message out to conference delegates already being showered with slogans, messages and leaflets.

As the conference approached, however, we had no commitment from either party. We were taken by surprise when the health minister used a speech opening the ‘Beyond Blame’ HIV criminalisation pre-conference to make a commitment to ‘amend section 19A to make it non-discriminatory.’ Given the blunt ‘not interested’ we had received a couple of months earlier, this was a stunning turnaround, but still fell short of what we wanted – full repeal of section 19A. Worse, the way the announcement was phrased suggested the scope of the law could in fact be widened to include other diseases like hepatitis C – the last thing we wanted.

As the conference week progressed, we continued to press our case and to highlight the need for repeal. We garnered positive press coverage following a media conference held on the opening day (even the tabloid press gave us a sympathetic hearing). The sight of thousands of protesters marching through the streets of Melbourne with signs reading ‘#REPEAL19A’ made the evening news. We publicly called on the government to clarify why they were saying ‘amend’ rather than ‘repeal’. Behind the scenes, we used every social event and reception to buttonhole politicians and push our case, highlighting the goodwill that an announcement would generate for them on the international stage. It was an exhausting week, but with each passing day we knew our opportunities were diminishing.

Finally, on the last full day of the conference, the opposition Labor Party committed to full repeal of section 19A, within one year, if they won the election in November. The word came though via text message while I was sitting in a conference session on criminalisation advocacy, and I felt close to tears as I told the room what had happened. We now had commitments from both major parties, meaning reform of the law was almost assured.

Following the conference, we continued to push the government to explain how they intended to ‘amend’ section 19A and pressed our case for full repeal further. We never got an answer to our question, because the government didn’t bring the legislation forward before the expiry of the parliamentary term, then at the election there was a change of government.

The Labor Party, which had unambiguously promised to repeal s 19A, was now in government, and one of the most pleasing things about the last five months has been seeing them stick to their guns around 19A. Seeing government ministers on gay pride day carrying a banner saying ‘repeal section 19A’ was amazing.

I think the key message from our experience is that if you have an opportunity and you plan well, you can make tremendous use of it. I realise most activists won’t have the luxury of having the international AIDS conference come to their city, but hopefully other opportunities exist where local and global attention can be used to highlight inequities in the law. Building collaborations and learning from what has worked elsewhere is vital, but develop a strategy that suits your local needs and capacities.

Don’t be deterred if others disagree with your strategy – I’ve lost count of the number of times I’ve been told that criminalisation isn’t a first-order issue, or that by advocating for change we risk ‘making things worse’, or that by advocating too hard we risk getting nothing in return and pushing the issue off the agenda.

Now that s 19A is gone, our work continues. We still need to address the unacceptably high number of prosecutions for ‘HIV endangerment’ that occur in Victoria. We strongly believe we have a model that will deliver the right public health outcomes while safeguarding the public, without the use of expensive, ineffective and highly stigmatising criminal prosecutions. With the repeal of section 19A, our state government has recommitted itself to a health-based response to HIV, and we believe that gives us the best possible platform to continue our campaign for prosecutorial guidelines.

Paul Kidd (@paulkidd) chairs the Victorian HIV Legal Working Group.

US: HIV Criminalization Task Force being set up to challenge Florida's HIV-specific criminal law

On April 3, 2015, SFGN interviewed Tami Haught, Sero Project Criminalization Conference Coordinator to discuss the HIV Criminalization Task Force in Florida.

Could you define “HIV criminalization” for the readers of SFGN?

“HIV criminalization” is the wrongful use of HIV status in a criminal prosecution, even when transmission was unlikely or impossible (a condom was used, the PLWHA had an undetectable viral load, or the behavior posed no risk of transmission, such as in biting, scratching, or spitting).

In discussions of HIV criminalization, “intent” has a similar importance to “consent” in discussions of sexual behavior. Could you explain how important “intent” is in this discussion?

The lack of intent is much easier to prove than intentional transmission. The lack of intent can be proven if you are doing everything right, like so many people living with HIV are. You’re taking your medication, you’re virally suppressed, or you’re using protection. Those defenses show that you are not intentionally trying to transmit HIV, because you are protecting yourself and your partner by taking your medications and using protection. Any of this would indicate an interest in not transmitting the virus, but under current HIV criminalization law, using a condom, or adhering to a medication regimen are irrelevant.

These laws appear to be based on a “protectionist” model of sexuality rather than an empowerment model. Could you discuss how the “protectionist” model has the potential to harm the very people it’s supposed to benefit?

When people think of sexual protection, generally it’s women being protected from men. Women, however, go to the doctor more often, and are more likely to take the HIV test than men are. These laws only target people who have taken the test and gotten their results.

Men have used the threat of these laws to keep HIV positive women from leaving them. After a break up, people have filed complaints based on these laws as revenge.

Could you discuss how HIV criminalization has worked in Florida?

There have been 250 charges filed in Florida and 153 convictions in Florida from 1998 to 2012. So far, the project has not been able to get breakdowns by race, gender, or sexuality. Lambda Legal and the ACLU are involved in this project.

You’re in Florida to set up an HIV Criminalization Task Force. Can you describe what you hope that Task Force will do?

The task force should include diverse people willing to advocate but also to reach out to legislators in Tallahassee for the reform of these laws. Floridians need to decide on how you want your laws to be modernized and what your political reality is. There will come a time when Floridians have to determine what is the minimal change that you will accept.

We have to reach out to faith based communities, everyone. It is not an easy conversation to have. It often takes more than one conversation. We’re going to have to be ready for the long haul, be persistent, and never give up. Because it can be done, but it’s definitely not easy.

Is there anything else you would like to say to the readers of SFGN?

We need your voices. We need your stories. Not just to legislators but also to other community members. It is by touching people’s hearts that we can make a difference to change the law.

If people wanted to find out more about the Florida HIV Criminalization Task Force, how could they?

To get involved with the Florida HIV Criminalization Task Force, people can email me at tami.haught@seroproject.com and I can get you added to the google group.

Kenya: Detailed analysis of recent High Court ruling on Kenya’s HIV-specific law by Annabel Raw, head of Health Rights Programme at the Southern Africa Litigation Centre

On 18 March 2015, in Aids Law Project v Attorney General and Others [2015] the High Court of Kenya declared section 24 of the HIV and AIDS Prevention and Control Act (“Act”) unconstitutional. I applaud the impetus of the decision but I want to argue that the narrow focus of the Court’s judgment reduces its potential to advance rational health policies and laws.

Section 24(1) of the Act requires a person aware of being HIV-positive to “take all reasonable measures and precautions to prevent the transmission of HIV to others” and to “inform, in advance, any sexual contact or persons with whom needles are shared” of their HIV-positive status. Subsection (2) prohibits “knowingly and recklessly, placing another person at risk of becoming infected with HIV”. Contravention of these provisions is a criminal offence punishable by imprisonment for up to seven years, and/or a fine. Under section 24(7), a medical practitioner who becomes aware of a patient’s HIV-status may inform anyone who has sexual contact with that patient of their HIV-status.

In 2010, the AIDS Law Project sought a declaration that section 24 of the Act was unconstitutional and “unacceptable discrimination” on the basis of health status. It argued that the undefined terms of “inform”, “in advance” and “sexual contact” renders section 24 vague and overbroad, contrary to the principle of legality. It submitted that the provision violates the right to a fair hearing, equality, non-discrimination, and sexual privacy. The petitioner was supported by an amicus curiae, the Centre for Reproductive Rights, which made submissions on the disproportionate impact that the provision would have on women, exacerbating stigma and undermining public health interventions.

In a unanimous judgment of a sitting of three judges of the High Court, Lenaola HJ held that the central issue was the provision’s vagueness and overbreadth. Focussing solely on the absence of a definition for “sexual contact”, the Court held that it is impossible to determine what acts are prohibited. Further, given that section 24 places no obligation on sexual contacts who have been informed of another’s HIV-status to keep that information confidential, the provision does not meet the standards for a justifiable limitation of the constitutional right to privacy.

Similar criminal provisions exist in a number of countries. The Constitutional Court in Zimbabwe is, for example, currently considering the constitutionality of Zimbabwe’s HIV criminalization law. The Kenyan judgment must be applauded to the extent that it emboldens the human rights critique of these laws and compels the Kenyan government to reconsider the provision.

It is disappointing, however, that the privacy violations were constructed so narrowly, with the Court failing to appreciate the risks of criminalizing non-disclosure more broadly, particularly for vulnerable groups, as raised by the amicus. Furthermore, by framing the vagueness and overbreadth ruling so strictly, the inhibiting effects of criminalization on effective public health interventions remain legally unscathed.

Insofar as the courts may be a useful forum to advance health rights and public health, perhaps a better legal foundation would be a rationality review of legislation. In a number of common law jurisdictions, this entails testing conduct or law against the ends that it claims to achieve. The standard typically requires that conduct needs to be rationally connected to a legitimate government interest or purpose in order to be lawful.

As made clear by the Act’s long title, its purpose is to prevent, control and manage HIV and AIDS, promote public health, and deliver appropriate care for persons living with HIV. The criminalization of HIV transmission and non-disclosure has come under heavy criticism by leading international experts and bodies for failing to protect human rights in a way that promotes public health initiatives for the effective treatment and control of HIV. If the argument against criminalization of HIV transmission is found persuasive in court, the legislation should be found irrational because it employs a strategy that is harmful to its purported ends.

It is in this sense that we might consider rationality review when using the courts in similar jurisdictions as fora to insist on public health policies and laws that are founded in scientific evidence and not fear and stigma.