US: Bill to modernise Indiana HIV laws advances to the full House

Legislation to modernize Indiana’s HIV laws clears House committee

People with HIV would no longer be subject to harsher criminal penalties under legislation that advanced out of a House committee Wednesday.

If you put your bodily fluid or waste on someone – like, say, spitting on them – it’s a misdemeanor in Indiana. But laws passed decades ago said that if you know you have HIV, it becomes a felony.

Carrie Foote said such laws reflect an outdated understanding of how HIV spreads. Foote, who was diagnosed with HIV in 1988, leads the state’s HIV Modernization Movement.

“HIV is not transmitted that way,” Foote said. “HIV is transmitted in very specific ways: sexually or if you share intravenous drugs with somebody.”

The measure, HB 1198, initially got rid of harsher penalties for putting bodily fluid on a law enforcement officer when you have HIV.

The statewide police union, represented by Ed Merchant, didn’t like that. He said police prefer the law the way it is – even if officers aren’t at risk from contracting HIV from things like spit.

“This provides our officers with better cover,” Merchant said. “It penalizes – it makes a felony for doing that.”

Rep. Wendy McNamara (R-Evansville) attempted a compromise – the bill now leaves in a felony if a person with HIV puts blood on a public safety official.

Other parts of the bill completely eliminate criminal penalties for donating blood or semen when you know you have HIV. Advocates said testing has eliminated the risks of such donations – and people with HIV can even be organ donors now.

More importantly, Dr. David Welsh said, those criminal penalties cause people to avoid getting tested for HIV in the first place – if they don’t know they have the virus, they can’t get charged.

Welsh represents the Indiana State Medical Association.

“Outdated laws can interfere with how we interact with our patients and can cause patients to distrust their physicians,” Welsh said.

The bill does make it a felony if a person with HIV isn’t following a treatment plan provided by a doctor and shares a needle or makes sexual contact with someone else without telling them they have HIV.

The measure is headed to the full House.

Kenya: Petitioners intend to appeal High Court decision to dismiss challenge to the criminalisation of HIV transmission

KELIN disappointed by High Court judgment in HIV criminalisation case

The Kenya Legal and Ethical Issues Network on HIV & AIDS (“KELIN”) is disappointed with the Nairobi High Court’s decision dismissing Petition 447 of 2018.

The Petition was filed in December 2018. It asked that the Court declare section 26 of the Sexual Offences Act 3 of 2006 to be unconstitutional, void and invalid, and therefore struck from the law. This law criminalises deliberate transmission and or exposure of life-threatening sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV.

On 20 December 2022, Justice Ong’udi in the Nairobi High Court dismissed the Petition, upholding the law’s constitutionality.

“We are disappointed with both the outcome and the Court’s process,” said Mr Allan Maleche, the Executive Director of KELIN. “The judgment failed to consider the undisputed expert evidence. That evidence showed how this law, and its application, are not only contrary to international scientific consensus on the nature and risk of HIV transmission, but that it is also harmful to proven strategies to prevent and treat HIV effectively”, he said.

Ms Nerima Were, KELIN’s Head of Programmes, said that in addition, KELIN regretted that the Court elected not to have an oral hearing and instead decided the case on the papers only. It also declined to consider the amici curiae’s submissions, despite that they had previously been admitted as friends of the Court on 27 January 2020. Ms Were said that “For such an important case, where understanding HIV science was critical to ensuring justice, the Court would have benefitted from hearing the Petitioners and counsel, and from considering the international expertise of the friends of the court, UNAIDS and HIV Justice Worldwide.”

Mr Maleche said that while the judgment somewhat narrows the interpretation of the offence, for as long as it remains on the books, it will continue to obstruct an effective HIV response. The Petitioners intend to appeal the judgment.

Who were the parties?

The petitioners were KELIN, people living with HIV and an HIV-negative spouse.

  • The first petitioner was a man living with HIV who had been charged with a crime under section 26 of the Sexual Offences Act for allegedly biting a police officer’s thumb during his arrest.
  • The second petitioner was a woman living with HIV who was on HIV treatment and had an undetectable viral load. She was charged under section 26 of the Sexual Offences Act after being falsely accused of breastfeeding another person’s child.
  • The third petitioner was a woman living with HIV. After she disclosed her HIV-positive status to her spouse, he violently assaulted her and threatened to report her to the police under section 26 of the Sexual Offences Act.
  • The fourth petitioner was a woman living with HIV who was married to the fifth petitioner, who is HIV-negative. The sixth petitioner was similarly a woman living with HIV who was married to an HIV-negative spouse. These petitioners were concerned that the HIV-positive spouses risked prosecution under section 26 of the Sexual Offences Act, even though they were all aware of each other’s HIV-statuses, and that the HIV-positive spouses were on treatment and taking precautions to prevent transmission.

The respondents were the Attorney General, the Director of Public Prosecution (“DPP”).

The National AIDS Control Council (“NACC”) joined as an interested party.

There were two friends of the court (or amici curiae): the Joint United National Programme on HIV and AIDS (“UNAIDS”) and HIV Justice Worldwide (“HJWW”) (“the friends of the Court”).

What were the parties’ arguments?

The Petitioners argued that section 26 of the Sexual Offences Act infringes the principle of legality because it is vague and arbitrarily enforced. They demonstrated that – by virtue of the law’s vague language – it is being applied in circumstances where there is scientifically a minimal or no risk of HIV transmission, and in circumstances where there is no established intent to transmit HIV.

The Petitioners demonstrated that section 26 of the Sexual Offences Act had been used to harass and extort people living with HIV, to test them without informed consent, as a tool of gender-based violence against women living with HIV, to publicise people’s confidential health information unjustifiably, and to advance HIV stigma and misinformation.

The Petitioners argued that the law therefore infringes constitutionally protected rights unjustifiably, including article 28 (the right to inherent dignity), article 29(f) (the right to freedom and security of the person), article 27 (the right to freedom from discrimination), article 49(1)(d) (the rights of arrested persons), article 50(1) (the right to a fair trial), article 31 (the right to privacy), and article 45 (the right to family).

The Petitioners provided undisputed expert evidence to show that the law did not prevent HIV transmission.

The Attorney General, with the support of the DPP, opposed the Petition. He argued that section 26 of the Sexual Offences Act was not unconstitutional and was clear and unambiguous.

The NACC also opposed the Petition. It argued that the law properly aimed to punish people who deliberately infect other people and did not infringe any constitutional rights.

HJWW and UNAIDS were admitted as friends of the Court on 27 January 2020. HJWW provided an international context to HIV criminalisation generally and to section 26 of the Sexual Offences Act specifically. UNAIDS sought to provide the court with information on international standards, policies and recommendations regarding the use of criminal law against HIV non-disclosure, exposure and transmission. The Court declined to consider the submissions of the friends of the court.

What was the court’s decision?

The High Court dismissed the Petition.

It considered that it was beyond its mandate to consider the undisputed evidence that the law undermined public health interventions and efforts to prevent HIV transmission.

The Court did not consider that section 26 of the Sexual Offences Act was unconstitutional. It held that, properly interpreted, an offence is only committed if a person has actual knowledge of their HIV status, and intentionally, knowingly and wilfully does infects a person with HIV or other sexually transmitted disease. It therefore did not consider the provision vague or ambiguous.

It held further that the Petitioners had not shown that section 26 of the Act violated their constitutional rights.

The Court nonetheless acknowledged that the Petitioners had “clearly showcased” that the law had been used to “harass and charge them wrongfully” as people living with HIV. It held that the Petitioners were at liberty to seek redress for any non-compliance by the authorities with the law.

It held that a person’s HIV-positive status should never be announced in open Court or published in order to protect the dignity of the person concerned.

What is the effect of the High Court’s decision?

The Court’s decision means that, unless the judgment is successfully overturned on appeal, section 26 of the Sexual Offences Act remains valid law in Kenya.

The Court has confirmed, however, that the offence should be restrictively applied only where three elements are proved beyond a reasonable doubt:

  • First, the perpetrator must act intentionally and with a specific intention to infect another person;
  • Second, the perpetrator must have actual knowledge of their HIV status; and
  • Third, the prosecution must prove that the perpetrator actually infected the other person with HIV.

The Petitioners have a right appeal the judgment to the Court of Appeal.

US: New bill in Indiana would remove sentence enhancements and criminal offences related to HIV

Indiana has harsher legal penalties for those living with HIV. A bill would change that.

Getting diagnosed with HIV was a death sentence in 1988, when Carrie Foote was 18 years old.

Thirty-five years later, the sociology professor at IUPUI has only the normal quirks of aging to worry about. Her chronic disease, with advancements in medicine, is entirely manageable with treatment.

But Indiana’s laws haven’t caught up to this reality. Laws on the books since the 1980s single out people living with HIV and give them stiffer penalties for certain acts, from donating blood or semen to spitting on another individual, despite advancements in scientific knowledge on how HIV is transmitted. Lawmakers are attempting for the fourth year to rectify the disparity, and have gained more support than in previous years.

“All we’re saying is just treat us fairly,” Foote told IndyStar after House Bill 1198’s first hearing Wednesday.

The bill, written by Rep. Wendy McNamara, R-Evansville, proposes eliminating the part of Indiana law that says those who know they have HIV and donate blood or semen can be punished with a felony. Clinical studies since this law was written have shown that people who undergo treatment can achieve an undetectable amount of HIV in their blood stream, which means they aren’t able to transmit HIV to other people. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration tests all donated blood and throws out any with traces of infectious disease.

Under existing law, purposefully spitting or putting some other bodily fluid, like feces, on another person is a misdemeanor. But it’s a felony for those who have HIV. The bill proposes removing the enhanced sentence for people living with HIV, as the modern scientific consensus shows these kinds of fluids do not transmit HIV, according to the CDC.

This is the fourth session where such a bill has been introduced. After hearing testimony Wednesday, the Courts and Criminal Code committee held the bill for a vote next week.

Foote, who chairs the statewide HIV Modernization Movement, said progress has been made every year in the Statehouse, starting with the removal or modernization of some language in the law that stigmatized people living with HIV ― changing “carrier” into “person with a communicable disease,” for example. The movement is a coalition of health providers, public health authorities, community leaders, legal experts and people living with HIV that formed in 2016 to work toward changing state laws.

This year, the bill gained new support from the Indiana Prosecuting Attorneys Council. The council was swayed by testimony from Indiana Department of Health and Eskinazi Hospital officials during a summer study committee on the advancements in medical knowledge of how HIV is transmitted, assistant executive director Courtney Curtis said.

The council then researched how often it files charges related to these parts of the law. Indiana prosecutors haven’t filed any charges related to HIV-positive blood donors since at least 2015, and have only done so ten times in the law’s history, she said. They charge more cases relating to assault with bodily fluids, but this charge is not “clogging up our system,” she said.

Lawmakers do plan to work with the council to tighten up language in a section of the bill to ensure it meshes cleanly with Indiana code before next week’s vote.

In a study of court case filings from 2015 to 2022 by IUPUI and the UCLA School of Law, 98% of the 130 cases of battery by bodily fluid involved acts that cannot transmit HIV. The other 2% involved sex, which carries the risk of transmission if a person has a detectable amount of HIV in their system.

The persistent stigma affects people of color more. Though Black people made up 13% of the U.S. population in 2019, they made up 40% of the population of people living with HIV, according to the CDC. Only 9% of Black people who were eligible for HIV prevention treatment actually got it in 2020, compared to 65% of white people.

Tony Gillespie, vice president of the Indiana Minority Health Coalition, remembers a time when the city of Gary, where he’s from, had no services for Black gay men living with HIV. Having now lived with HIV for 30 years, he said he’s encouraged by the progress made in both Gary and with this legislation.

“I’m encouraged because this is such a move in the right direction in making science-based decisions and not fear-based,” he said.

The bill is met with skepticism from the Indiana state police union. Legal representative Ed Merchant said the Fraternal Order of Police is opposed to eliminating the enhanced charge for people with HIV who, for example, spit on an officer. The bill would keep in place the part of the law that says those with an intent to harm someone else can be charged with a felony, but Merchant said the FOP believes existing law gives officers “better cover.”

Indiana remains one of 35 states that have laws criminalizing HIV exposure as of late 2022, according to the CDC.

McNamara attributes this to a generational stigma rooted in fear-mongering from the 1980s and 90s. Anyone growing up at that time remembers turning on the TV and hearing about people dying from HIV/AIDS, she said.

“That fear predominates a lot of the mindset of my generation,” she said. “And I think that’s what makes it hard.”

Kenya: High Court dismisses petition challenging the constitutionality of HIV criminalisation

Disappointment as High Court Dismisses Case Challenging Criminalisation of HIV transmission

Nairobi, 20th December 2022. The High Court has dealt a blow to the fight against the HIV response, by dismissing a petition that challenged the criminalisation of all forms of deliberate transmission of HIV. Hon. Lady Justice Hedwig Ong’udi dismissed the petition on the grounds, the petitioners had not met the threshold to have the section declared unconstitutional. Further she noted that Section 26 of the Sexual Offences Act(SOA), does not refer to all people living with HIV, but rather those who deliberately and knowingly transmit HIV.

Had the court upheld the petition Kenya who have been removed from the list of the 30 sub-Saharan nations  and the 92 countries globally, who have enacted and enforced laws that criminalise HIV exposure and infection.

The petition filed by KELIN, and 6 other petitioners, who included people living with HIV, challenged the constitutionality of Section 26 of the SOA. This law criminalizes the deliberate transmission of HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases. The Petitioners had based their petition on the factual and lived experiences of each of the first six petitioners, all of whom have been adversely affected by the discriminatory application of this section yet had not been engaged in any sexual offences.

The Attorney General together with the National AIDS Control Council had opposed the petition arguing the section was constitutional as it was necessary to curb deliberate transmission due to the continued presence of HIV in Africa. It further argued that the rights of persons living or affected by HIV are not absolute, and that these must be weighed and interpreted with limitations provided under the Constitution.

As at the time of publishing this news alert, the court judgment had yet to be released to the parties. We look forward to receiving the court decision to better understand the court’s reasoning as well as determine a way forward.   A further statement will be issued in due course.

Links to pleadings

Petition

Submissions

Supplementary submissions

AG submissions

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.

Democratic Republic of Congo: Decriminalisation can be achieved when all stakeholders, including people with HIV, are included in the process

The AIDS epidemic and the justice system: Fighting against the criminalisation of HIV in the DRC

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

By Ms MUJINGA BIMANSHA Marie-Josée, Conseiller à la Cour de Cassation, Country Focal Point, HIV and Human Rights

It has been observed that 3 decades after the appearance of HIV infection and despite all the efforts undertaken and the progress made in scientific and medical terms, particularly through the production of ARVs, this epidemic continues to resist.

This resistance is linked to certain major obstacles that render the response ineffective. These include the violation of human rights through discrimination and stigmatisation of people living with HIV/AIDS, vulnerable people such as women, young girls, children and key populations.

In the Democratic Republic of Congo, Article 45 of Law No. 08/11 of 14 July 2008 on the protection of the rights of people living with HIV and those affected, criminalised anyone who deliberately transmitted HIV infection.

4 years after the promulgation of the aforementioned law, several cases were brought to court on the basis of the aforementioned provision, but most of the perpetrators were acquitted for lack of evidence to prove that they had committed the offence.

It was subsequently observed that the public had begun to stigmatise the victims who brought their complaints before the courts, who began to live in hiding.

This situation raised the question of the criminalisation of HIV because, on the one hand, people living with HIV (PLHIV) and their perpetrators (AP) began to go underground for fear of being stigmatised and discriminated against and, on the other hand, because the judges hearing these cases were finding it difficult to establish the offences in the cases brought before them.
This law had a negative impact on the national response, because PLHIV and IP had difficulty accessing justice and all HIV-related services.

To remedy this situation, a national dialogue was organised under the aegis of the Ministry of Justice through the country’s HIV and Human Rights Focal Point and all the components of the response, at the end of which a number of recommendations were made that led to the reform of the aforementioned law. In particular, the dialogue facilitated the drafting of the National Strategic Plan for the fight against AIDS, a review of the legal framework, and a study on the stigma index for PLHIV and key populations. In addition, training materials, pleas and arguments for the non-discrimination of key populations were developed at national level.

Around 3,500 magistrates and 6,000 court officers (OPJs, lawyers, IPJs, clerks) have been trained in rights and HIV and in the criminalisation of HIV. Forums have also been organised with members of parliament, who have been made aware of HIV issues and the need to revise provisions that criminalise HIV. Religious leaders have also been made aware of HIV-related issues.

As a result, in 2016 we were able to get Parliament to repeal Article 45, which penalised HIV.

We must remember that to achieve this reform of the law we based ourselves on the realities of the country, given the negative consequences of penalising provisions in the response to HIV. We have held many discussions with parliamentarians on the issue of criminalising HIV. We have identified the right allies among parliamentarians to bring the issue before the National Assembly. We have also involved the judiciary, HIV and human rights associations and the media in the discussions.

So it was by combining our efforts with all the players mentioned above, including the government through the Ministry of Justice, and technical and financial partners, in particular the UNDP, and by organising training and awareness-raising activities that we achieved the desired result.

In conclusion, the process of decriminalisation is certainly a long one, but it is necessary to involve all the components mentioned above through training and awareness-raising, including people living with HIV themselves, and vulnerable groups to achieve a good result.

While mobilisation in the DRC led to the reform of the law on HIV, the process was not without its difficulties in a context of stigmatisation and homophobia that is still present.

Legislative reform can take time, and can even discourage certain allies and partners. We believe, however, that efforts still need to be made to ensure greater ownership of non-penalising laws on HIV, including by building the capacity of those involved in the justice system.

Epidémie de sida et le système de justice: Lutter contre la criminalisation du VIH au RDC

Par Mme MUJINGA BIMANSHA Marie-Josée, Conseiller à la Cour de Cassation, Point Focal Pays, VIH et Droits Humains

Il a été constaté que 3 décennies après l’apparition de l’infection à VIH Sida et malgré tous les efforts entrepris et les progrès enregistrés sur les plans scientifique et médical notamment par la production des ARV, cette épidémie continue à résister.

Cette résistance est liée à certains obstacles majeurs qui rendent la riposte inefficace. Il s’agit notamment de la violation des droits humains qui se traduit par la discrimination et la stigmatisation à l’égard des personnes vivant avec le VIH sida, les personnes vulnérables telles que les femmes, les jeunes filles, les enfants et les populations clés.

S’agissant de la République Démocratique du Congo, la loi n° 08/11 du 14 juillet 2008 portant sur la protection des droits des personnes vivant avec VIH et personnes affectées, criminalisait en son article 45, toute personne qui transmettait volontairement l’infection de VIH.

4 ans après la promulgation de ladite loi, plusieurs cas ont été portés en justice, sur base de la disposition précitée mais la plupart des auteurs poursuivis ont été acquittés faute des preuves d’établir cette infraction à leur charge.

Il a été constaté par la suite, que la population avait commencé à stigmatiser les victimes qui se plaignaient en justice, qui ont commencé à vivre en clandestinité.

Cette situation a remis sur la table la question de la pénalisation en matière de VIH car d’une part, la personne vivant avec le VIH (PVVH) ainsi que leurs auteurs (PA) ont commencé à vivre en clandestinité par crainte de la stigmatisation et de la discrimination à leur égard et d’autre part, parce que les juges saisis de ces cas rencontraient des difficultés à retenir les infractions pour les cas qui leur étaient soumis.
Cette loi, a joué négativement sur la riposte nationale parce que les PVVH et PA avaient du mal à accéder à la justice et à tous les services liés au VIH.

Pour remédier à cette situation, un dialogue national a été organisé sous l’égide du Ministère de la Justice à travers le Point Focal pays VIH et Droits HUMAINS ainsi que toutes les composante à la lutte à l’issue duquel ont été prises certaines recommandations qui ont milité à le réforme de la loi précitée. Notamment, le dialogue a facilité l’élaboration du Plan Stratégique National de lutte contre le sida, une revue du cadre légal, une étude sur l’index stigma des PVVH et population clé. De plus, l’élaboration des supports de formation et des plaidoyers, des argumentaires pour la non-discrimination des populations clés ont été tenus au niveau national.

Environ 3.500 magistrats, 6.000 auxiliaires de justice (OPJ, avocats, IPJ, Greffiers) ont été formés sur les questions des droits et VIH et sur la problématique de la criminalisation du VIH. Des forums ont été également organisés avec les parlementaires qui ont été sensibilisés sur les questions du VIH et sur la nécessité de réviser les dispositions pénalisantes en matière de VIH. Les leaders religieux ont été aussi sensibilisés sur les questions liées au VIH.

C’est ainsi qu’en 2016 nous avons pu obtenir du parlement l’abrogation de l’article 45 qui était pénalisant pour le VIH.

Nous devons retenir que pour réussir cette réforme de la loi nous nous sommes basés sur les réalités du pays eu égard aux conséquences négatives des dispositions pénalisantes dans la riposte contre le VIH. Nous avons multiplié les échanges sur la question avec les parlementaires sur la question de la pénalisation du VIH. Nous avons identifié les bons alliés parmi les parlementaires pour porter la question devant l’Assemblée nationale. Nous avons également associé aux échanges, les acteurs judiciaires, les associations de lutte contre le VIH et de défense des droits de l’homme ainsi que les médias.

Ainsi donc, c’est en conjuguant les efforts avec toutes les composantes précitées y compris le gouvernement à travers le ministère de la Justice, ainsi que les partenaires techniques et financiers, notamment le PNUD, et en organisant des activités, des formations et de sensibilisation que nous sommes parvenu au résultat escompté.

En conclusion, le processus de la dépénalisation est certes long mais il faut associer toutes les composantes précitées par la voie de formation et sensibilisation, y compris les personnes vivant avec VIH elles-mêmes, et les groupes vulnérables pour parvenir à un bon résultat.

Si la mobilisation en RDC a conduit à la réforme de la loi sur le VIH le processus n’a pas été sans difficulté dans un contexte de stigmatisation et d‘homophobie toujours présente.

Les reformes législatives peuvent prendre du temps et entrainer même le découragement des certains alliés et partenaires. Nous estimons cependant que les efforts restent à faire pour une meilleure appropriation des lois non pénalisantes sur le VIH et cela en passant également par le renforcement des capacités des acteurs de justice.

 

Russia: Court finds refusal to let migrant woman stay in Russia because of her HIV status unlawful

Court in Krasnodar invalidates refusal to allow a foreigner with HIV to stay in Russia

Translated via Deepl.com. For original article in Russian, please scroll down.

The Krasnodar Territory Department of the Russian Federal Consumer Rights Protection and Human Health Control Service decided that Uzbek citizen X. was undesirable in Russia because of her HIV positive status. The Leninskiy Court in Krasnodar found the ban discriminatory and unlawful.

The foreigner went to court to challenge the decision to ban her from staying in Russia, pointing out that her parents, brother and sister reside in Russia and have Russian citizenship, and she has never violated the law. When Rosia appealed to Rospotrebnadzor to cancel the decision, they replied that the procedure for cancellation or suspension under this category was not regulated by law and that the contested decision could only be cancelled on the basis of a court decision.

The court found that under the law On the Prevention of the Spread of Disease Caused by HIV in the Russian Federation, foreigners and stateless persons with such status may stay in the country if they do not violate administrative and criminal law. The Russian Constitutional Court has also confirmed the illegality of such restrictions.

As a result, the Leninskiy Court in Krasnodar ordered the regional department of Rospotrebnadzor to reverse the decision on the undesirability of the Uzbekistani citizen, who is now allowed to enter the country.

Суд в Краснодаре признал незаконным отказ во въезде в Россию иностранке с ВИЧ

Управление Роспотребнадзора по Краснодарскому краю приняло решение о нежелательности нахождения в России гражданки Узбекистана Р.Р. из-за ее положительного ВИЧ-статуса. Ленинский суд Краснодара признал запрет дискриминационным и незаконным.

Иностранка обратилась в суд, оспаривая решение о запрете пребывания в России, указав: ее родители, брат и сестра проживают в России и имеют российское гражданство, она ни разу не нарушала законодательство. Когда Розия обратилась в Роспотребнадзор с требованием отменить решение, там ответили – порядок отмены или приостановления по этой категории законодательно не урегулирован и отмена оспариваемого решения возможна только на основании решения суда.

Суд установил, что по закону “О предупреждении распространения в Российской Федерации заболевания, вызываемого ВИЧ” иностранцы и лица без гражданства с подобным статусом могут находиться в стране, если не нарушают административное и уголовное законодательство. Незаконность такого ограничения подтверждает и Конституционный суд России.

В итоге Ленинский суд Краснодара обязал региональное управление Роспотребнадзора отменить решение о нежелательности пребывания гражданки Узбекистана, которой теперь разрешен въезд в страну.

Mexico: LGBTQ+ community calling for the repeal of HIV criminalisation statute in Quintana Roo Public Health Law

LGBTQ+ community calls for changes to Quintana Roo Health Law

Translated via Deepl.com. Please scroll down for original article in Spanish.

The LGBTQ+ community is calling for the repeal of the criminalisation of HIV transmission in the Quintana Roo Health Law.

The LGBTQ+ community, in a working meeting with local Congresswoman Estefanía Mercado Asencio, requested the repeal of Article 113 of the Quintana Roo Health Law, which criminalises the transmission of sexually transmitted diseases, specifically HIV.

The repeal of this article, found in Title Eight, Chapter II, Communicable Diseases, has been requested for several Legislatures, but has been ignored, said Omar Ortiz, the President of the Civil Association “Información y Educación Sexual”.

At the meeting, which was attended by people representing sexually diverse populations, people involved in the HIV response and mothers of various sexually diverse populations, a request was made to encourage municipalities to have a Sexual Diversity Unit, as in Solidaridad, which is the only municipality with such a unit, and for the State Government to have a Secretariat for Sexual Diversity.

“We were attending to the pending legislative agenda, with respect to what is already advanced and what is pending in the matter, at the local level; we talked about article 113 of the Health Law, which criminalises the issue of HIV, as well as the fact that Solidaridad is the only municipality that has a Unit for the Attention to Sexual Diversity, and she, as a deputy, has the possibility of presenting an initiative so that all municipalities have this position,” he pointed out.

“The article criminalises the fact of transmission, when it is an issue that cannot be scientifically proven; I cannot prove that you have transmitted HIV to me because there is no scientific or laboratory mechanism that allows us to know that it was you and not another partner or my sexual contacts, nor at what moment it happened. There is no way to apply that article, it is basically up to interpretation and that cannot be in the law.

Another issue they asked the Congresswoman to address is the creation of the Unit for Comprehensive Care of Sexually Diverse Populations and Children and Adolescents who require specialised endocrinology care, which responds to the needs of social minorities, such as the transgender population, in order to carry out their transition process under medical supervision, without endangering their lives and health.

Exige comunidad LGBTQ+ cambios a Ley de Salud de Quintana Roo

La comunidad LGBTQ+ pide derogar la criminalización del hecho de la transmisión del VIH en la Ley de Salud de Quintana Roo.

La comunidad LGBTQ+, en reunión de trabajo con la Diputada local, Estefanía Mercado Asencio, solicitó derogar el artículo 113 de la Ley de Salud de Quintana Roo ya que, criminaliza el hecho de la transmisión de enfermedades venéreas, en específico del VIH.

El citado artículo, ubicado en el Título Octavo, Capítulo II, Enfermedades Transmisibles, se ha pedido su derogación desde hace varias Legislaturas, pero ha sido ignorado, apuntó el Presidente de la Asociación Civil “Información y Educación Sexual”, Omar Ortiz.

En el encuentro donde participaron personas de la diversidad sexual, de respuesta del VIH y madres de poblaciones de la diversidad, se solicitó la promoción de una iniciativa para que los Ayuntamientos tengan una Unidad de la Diversidad Sexual, como en Solidaridad, que es el único con esta instancia, y que el Gobierno del Estado tenga una Secretaría de la Diversidad Sexual.

“Estuvimos atendiendo la agenda Legislativa pendiente, respecto a lo ya avanzado y lo pendiente que tenemos en la materia, en el terreno local; hablamos del artículo 113 de la Ley de Salud, que criminaliza el tema del VIH, así como que Solidaridad es el único Ayuntamiento que tiene una Unidad para la Atención a la Diversidad Sexual, y ella, como diputada, tiene la posibilidad de presentar una iniciativa para que todos los municipios cuenten con esta figura”, señaló.

“El artículo criminaliza el hecho de la transmisión, cuando es un tema que científicamente no se puede probar; yo no puedo probar que tú me hayas transmitido el VIH porque no existe un mecanismo científico, de laboratorio, que permita saber que fuiste tú y no otra pareja o mis contactos sexuales, ni en qué momento se dio. No hay manera de aplicar ese artículo, está básicamente a interpretación y eso no puede ser en la ley”.

Otro tema que pidieron a la Congresista es la creación de la Unidad de Atención Integral a Poblaciones de la Diversidad Sexual y Niños, Niñas y Adolescentes que requieran atención especializada en endocrinología, que responda a la necesidad de las minorías sociales, como la población trans, a fin de realizar su proceso de transición bajo vigilancia médica, sin poner en peligro su vida y salud.

US: Pennsylvania’s governor signs bill subjecting people with a communicable disease to harsher penalties

Pennsylvania’s Governor Wolf has signed bill HB 103. HB 103 creates two new, unnecessary, and broadly applicable felony offenses and subjects people with a communicable disease, such as HIV, to harsher penalties under law. As passed, HB 103 would create two new felonies:

  1. A new third-degree felony offense for something as small as “expelling” saliva on a police officer, punishable by up to seven years in prison and up to $15,000 in fines; and
  2. A new second-degree felony offense if the person knew or “should have known” they had a reportable, communicable disease if their actions could have transmitted a communicable disease—punishable by up to TEN YEARS in prison and up to $25,000 in fines.

From LGBTQ Nation – By Daniel Villarreal

Democratic governor signs law punishing HIV transmission with up to 10 years in prison

As of 2022, 35 states have outdated and discriminatory laws that criminalize HIV exposure (and predominantly punish Black people).

Pennsylvania’s Gov. Tom Wolf (D) just signed a new law that makes it a felony to pass on a communicable disease when they “should have known” that they had it, the HIV Justice Network reported.Opponents of the law worry it will be used to punish people with HIV or other STDs who unknowingly transmit it to sexual partners. Such HIV criminalization laws have disproportionately been used to target Black men and other men of color.

The law, known as HB 103, punishes people with up to 7 years in prison and $15,000 in fines for “expelling” saliva, blood, or another bodily fluid onto a police officer.

While the offense, a third-degree felony, has to be “intentional,” one could see an arrestee being charged with it if they accidentally spit onto an officer while talking or bleed onto an officer during a violent arrest.

The law also charges people with a second-degree felony if they knew or “should have known” that they had a communicable disease after transmitting it to someone else. The offense is punishable by up to 10 years in prison and $25,000 in fines.

This not only would apply to anyone who transmits HIV; it could also apply to people who unintentionally transmit hepatitis, influenza, chickenpox, and COVID-19.

The bill has been opposed by the Elizabeth Taylor AIDS Foundation, the Anti-defamation League of Pennsylvania, the American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania, the Pennsylvania HIV Justice Alliance, the Positive Women’s Network-USA, the Sero Project, the AIDS Law Project of Pennsylvania, Advocates for Youth, and many other groups.

“As a person living with HIV who was born and raised in Pennsylvania, the passing of HB 103 serves as a reminder that as we get closer to ending the HIV epidemic, we have a long way to go to end HIV stigma and the criminalization of people living with HIV,” said Louie Ortiz-Fonseca, Director of LGBTQ Health & Rights with Advocates for Youth.Medical professionals have said that HIV criminalization laws do nothing to stop the spread of the virus and may even encourage people not to get tested for fear that the knowledge could subject them to criminal penalties.

A 2018 Williams Institute study on HIV criminalization in Georgia found that “Black men and Black women were more likely to be arrested for HIV-related offenses than their white counterparts.” While 26 percent of HIV-related arrests were of white males, 46 percent of HIV-related arrests were of Black males.

Additionally, 11 percent of those arrested were white females, while 16 percent were Black females.As of 2022, 35 states have laws that criminalize HIV exposure, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

Many of the laws were passed at a time when little was known about HIV and millions were dying from the virus.“Many of these state laws criminalize actions that cannot transmit HIV – such as biting or spitting – and apply regardless of actual transmission, or intent,” the CDC wrote.

“After more than 40 years of HIV research and significant biomedical advancements to treat and prevent HIV transmission, many state laws are now outdated and do not reflect our current understanding of HIV.”