Canada: Ruling from Ontario court of appeal opens the door for other people with HIV to seek to have their convictions overturned

‘I was made out to be a monster’: With her conviction for not disclosing her HIV status now overturned, one woman wants Canada’s laws to change

Jennifer Murphy was convicted for not disclosing her HIV status to a sexual partner, despite being unable to transmit the virus.

When Jennifer Murphy was found guilty of aggravated sexual assault, her face was splashed all over the news — her life changed due to a conviction that has now been overturned.

The 2013 conviction in a Barrie, Ont. courtroom was for not disclosing her HIV-positive status to a sexual partner in a consensual encounter. At the time, she had an undetectable viral load thanks to medication, and was therefore unable to transmit the virus.

“I was made out to be a monster,” she said in a statement to the Star last week.

Murphy was sentenced to more than three years in prison, minus 15 months for time served in pre-sentence custody.

“It was all over the news and my family and friends had to read that and feel the pain and agony,” she said. “They had to worry about their daughter or their mother and what would happen to her.”

Canadian law requires an individual living with HIV to disclose their status to a sexual partner if there is a realistic possibility of transmission. At the time of Murphy’s conviction, it was generally understood within the legal system that disclosure was not necessary if the individual had both a low viral load and used a condom. No condom was used in the Murphy case.

Earlier this month, the Ontario Court of Appeal overturned Murphy’s conviction and entered an acquittal, accepting fresh expert evidence that Murphy’s undetectable viral load meant there was no realistic possibility of transmission of the virus.

The decision opens the door for other people with HIV in Ontario, found guilty in situations similar to Murphy’s, to seek to have their convictions overturned.

“I want them to get justice, too,” she said.

The ruling also comes as the federal government plans to reform the law on HIV nondisclosure, impacting the whole country — a move advocates hope will see the justice system finally recognize that the science has evolved around HIV, and that a person with an undetectable viral load simply cannot transmit the virus.

They say the ongoing criminalization of HIV nondisclosure continues to perpetuate stigma against people living with HIV.

“The community has been calling on the government to act for years,” said Alexander McClelland, assistant professor at the Institute of criminology and criminal justice at Carleton University, and a member of the Canadian Coalition to Reform HIV Criminalization.

“People living with HIV, legal experts, have been calling out the heinous record of Canada being a leading country in the world for criminalizing HIV nondisclosure.”

There are a number of reasons why a person doesn’t disclose their HIV status to a sexual partner, he said, including fear of violence.

“Our faces are on the covers of newspapers framed as violent perpetrators,” he said. “As someone who has done research on this, I can tell you nothing is further from the truth. People living with HIV want to protect their partners, they want to protect themselves, they want to live lawfully and freely and be able to have positive, healthy sex lives.”

As Murphy put it, “Right now, you can be convicted despite doing everything right — taking medication and suppressing your viral load.”

After several months of community consultation, the coalition released its second consensus statement in July, calling for changes to the Criminal Code that would limit prosecutions to the “very rare” instance where there was intentional, actual transmission of the virus.

The statement, signed by dozens of organizations, describes Canada as a “global hot spot” for nondisclosure prosecutions, saying there had been more than 220 by the end of last year, with the Black, Indigenous and gay communities being disproportionately affected.

There are no HIV-specific offences in the Criminal Code. The consensus statement points out that police and prosecutors will typically use the charge of aggravated sexual assault in nondisclosure cases, which carries a maximum prison term of life, mandatory designation as a sex offender, and “almost certain deportation” for non-citizens.

Murphy was required to take sex offender counselling in prison, “which was degrading and humiliating,” and she also had to deal with other inmates also knowing about her case.

“The outside world was judging me while the inside world was doing the same,” she said. “I would put myself in segregation just to get away from everyone.”

The federal government announced at the end of July that it will hold consultations in October “on how best to modernize the criminal justice system’s response to nondisclosure of HIV status” given the scientific evidence on sexual transmission of HIV.

Faced with criticism as to whether further consultation is necessary, Justice Minister David Lametti said in an interview last week it will not be lengthy, but rather “focused and targeted” with expert advocacy groups.

“I’m going to try to put an end, a positive end, to all of this as soon as possible,” he said. “No one should underestimate my good faith on this.”

After studying the issue, the House of Commons standing committee on justice recommended in 2019 that the government create a specific Criminal Code offence for actual transmission of infectious diseases, including HIV. The coalition is against adding an HIV-specific offence to the code for fear of perpetuating further stigma.

“I understand very well the point that such an offence would, in all likelihood, lead to continued stigmatization of people living with HIV and that is something we do not want to do,” Lametti said.

The coalition is calling for Criminal Code reform that would prohibit the ability to prosecute nondisclosure cases under sexual assault offences, and to limit the use of any other offence to intentional, actual transmission of the virus, while stating that the use of the criminal law should be a measure of last resort.

“The science around HIV has evolved, we know more now,” Lametti said. “We know that there’s stigma that’s been attached, that sexual assault laws are not appropriate and cumbersome and lead to results that are frankly unjust.”

An undetectable viral load can be achieved by taking medication, and essentially means “you cannot see the virus based on the conventional systems that we have to detect it,” said infectious diseases physician Dr. Isaac Bogoch. He highlighted a slogan that has gained much traction in recent years: U = U, undetectable equals untransmittable.

“It’s not only scientifically accurate, but it’s a way that we can help destigmatize HIV infection because it’s simple, it’s easy to understand, and it’s universal,” said Bogoch, a physician with the HIV Clinic at Toronto General Hospital.

“These are individuals who will not be able to transmit HIV to others. They just won’t.”

It was a 2012 Supreme Court of Canada decision known as R. v. Mabior that found a low viral load and condom were required to avoid prosecution for HIV nondisclosure, and it was that standard that was applied to Murphy’s case in 2013. But the top court also said the double requirement “does not preclude the common law from adapting to future advances in treatment.”

Murphy’s appeal lawyer, Colleen McKeown, asked the Court of Appeal to “identify a new set of circumstances” in which there’s no realistic possibility of transmission — and therefore disclosure is not necessary — namely that the person has a suppressed viral load and is taking antiretroviral medication. The court’s ruling on that issue is pending.

“I hope that it offers a path forward for people who might be in a similar situation to see their convictions overturned as well,” McKeown said of the Murphy appeal. She said even individuals who pleaded guilty when the “legal landscape” was different could take steps to see if they could get their convictions overturned.

In the years since the Mabior decision, at least four provinces — Ontario, Quebec, British Columbia and Alberta — have adopted a mix of official guidelines and unofficial policies to curb HIV nondisclosure prosecutions.

In the territories, where federal prosecutors handle criminal cases, Crown attorneys have been told not to prosecute if there is an undetectable viral load, and to “generally” not prosecute where a condom was used or if the person engaged only in oral sex, even if the viral load was not suppressed.

In Ontario, Crowns were instructed through provincial guidelines in 2017 not to prosecute if the individual is on medication and had an undetectable viral load for at least six months, but is silent on condom use alone.

“The result of prosecutorial guidance is you get an inconsistent approach across Canada,” said India Annamanthadoo, policy analyst at the HIV Legal Network and member of the coalition. “Why we’re advocating for Criminal Code reform is that it will be a consistent approach across Canada.”

McClelland added that “being someone living with HIV, having an inconsistent understanding or uncertainty about what I could be prosecuted with and where, is a completely unreasonable way to live a life in Canada as a Canadian resident.”

The coalition is also calling on the government to end the deportation of non-citizens following a conviction, and to review past convictions.

“There are a lot of people who were convicted in discriminatory and unscientific circumstances and those convictions need to be reviewed,” said Annamanthadoo, “so people do not have to live under the label of a criminal and a sex offender.”

Murphy said she’s still absorbing the impact of the Court of Appeal’s decision.

“I am worried that, even with my conviction overturned, there will still be people who will judge me. I shouldn’t have to live with it, but I do,” she said. “It doesn’t erase the stories on the internet. All the negative publicity will still be there.”

But she said it means she gets to focus on changing the law, urging the federal government to take action and finally provide some certainty to people living with HIV.

“It’s a human rights issue. It discriminates against people who have an illness,” she said.

“I want the public to know that people with a suppressed viral load pose no threat to anyone.”

United Nations Development Program continues to advocate for the global decriminalization of HIV

Decriminalization of HIV is ‘Scientifically Proven and Morally Correct’

Across the globe, one hundred and thirty-four countries are criminalized or prosecuted due to criminal laws against HIV transmission, non-disclosure and exposure. Lower rates of HIV treatment and viral suppression are present and more likely in those countries that criminalize the virus. In a recent article by Mandeep Dhaliwal, director of the HIV and Health Group for the United Nations Development Program, states that the decriminalization of HIV is “scientifically proven and morally correct.”

Laws that target people living with HIV hinder the progress of the United Nations’ political declaration to ends AIDS by 2030, which is supported by 165 countries.

Dhaliwal explains that criminalization is constructively harmful, cost lives, and wastes money. HIV criminalization targets fixed populations that include sex workers, men that have sex with men, transgender people, needle users and their partners, and other marginalized groups. In 2021, these groups, combined, accounted for 70 percent of new HIV cases.

In order to reach the goal to end HIV as a public health threat, the idea to achieve “10-10-10.” The 10-10-10 initiative is a set of targets that encourages countries to repeal punitive laws and policies in conflict with ending stigma, discrimination, and gender-based violence.

Specifically the targets would need to achieve: “less than 10 percent of people living with HIV and key populations experiencing stigma and discrimination; less than 10 percent of people living with HIV, women and girls, and key populations experiencing gender-based inequalities and gender-based violence; and less than 10 percent of countries with legal and policy environments that deny or limit access to HIV services.”

Dhaliwal also helped assemble the Global Commission on HIV and the Law, which works to help countries and their communities end discriminatory laws that wrongfully punish people, perpetuate illness and poverty, and prevent the progress of ending HIV.

Mexico: 30 states retain the crime of “danger of contagion” in their local penal codes

Danger of contagion’, the offence punishable in 30 states and organisations call for repeal to avoid stigmatisation

Automated translation via Deepl.com – For article in Spanish please scroll down.

In Mexico, with the exception of Aguascalientes and San Luis Potosí, 30 states retain the crime of “danger of contagion” in their local penal codes, a remnant from decades ago that only contributes to the stigmatisation and persecution of people living with HIV.

Coahuila and Tamaulipas provide penalties for “whoever transmits AIDS” in particular, but seven other states – Baja California, Oaxaca, Zacatecas, Puebla, Veracruz, Sonora, Yucatan and Nayarit – directly criminalise those who have a sexually transmitted infection and engage in conduct that could be considered “dangerous” to the health of another person.

Zacatecas and Nayarit also penalise a woman with a disease or syphilis who breastfeeds a baby.

In 17 states, criminal penalties imposed on a person for allegedly transmitting a disease can be aggravated by up to several years in prison, according to the study “La legislación mexicana en materia de VIH y sida. Its impact on people living with HIV”, carried out by the Mexican Network of Organisations against the Criminalisation of HIV.

Danger of infection, a crime that contributes to discrimination

The civil codes of Baja California Sur, Guerrero and Baja California specify that people living with HIV are prohibited from marrying.

In 20 states, a person with a chronic or incurable disease cannot be granted guardianship of a minor. Furthermore, in 19 states, a medical certificate stating that one does not have an illness is required as a condition of marriage.

These restrictions make it possible to “undermine some of the rights of people living with HIV,” the document warns.

In contrast, to guarantee the right to non-discrimination of people living with HIV, only 14 states consider HIV testing without consent or as a requirement for employment to be discriminatory.

Only 12 states identify stigmatising or violating the rights of people living with HIV as a discriminatory action, and only two states have passed and maintain HIV-specific laws.

“To begin with, the crime of contagion is a crime that is based on an assumption; it is not a crime that is scientifically verifiable, because there are not enough tools to be able to determine who did or did not transmit a virus to another person,” explains Leonardo Bastida, one of the authors of the analysis, in an interview.

Bastida says that there is still a lot of stigmatisation towards those living with HIV or who have a virus-related illness, as in the case of COVID-19.

“This causes people to be afraid of the situation, that they are not interested in getting diagnosed in order to avoid problems, because in a certain way, seeing this as something bad, does not generate a sense of responsibility, of personal and collective care.

At the same time, it also inhibits the generation of public health policies that should be focused on reducing the number of new infections; it also sends a message of negativity, guilt and punishment, when with the scientific advances that exist to date, the majority of people living with HIV can achieve undetectability and, therefore, non-transmissibility of the virus.

“There are codes that are very specific, that if the disease is contagious or puts people’s lives in danger; many adjectives are used that do not correspond to reality, so this image is given of associating it with something bad and that the person living with HIV, by that simple fact, is a risk factor, when in reality the risk factors are others; it generates a contradictory and somewhat ambiguous message for society,” adds Bastida.

Most of the articles in penal codes that punish the crime of “danger of contagion” came into force between 1920 and 1930, that is, they are almost 100 years old. Since 2015, attempts have been made to reform these articles, not to eliminate them, but to establish stronger sentences.

In at least seven states, cases have been prosecuted on the basis of this crime: 15 in Veracruz, 14 in Sonora, five in Tamaulipas, four in the State of Mexico, three in Chihuahua, one in Nuevo León and one in Mexico City.

“The prosecutors’ offices, seeing it in force in the law, insist on taking it up again; and often the argument is that the transmission is on purpose, a situation that cannot be ruled out, but for that there are already crimes of injury in the penal codes themselves, so a transmission with malice aforethought could be included in those terms. It is clearer than leaving an ambiguous offence, which is also only based on assumptions,” Bastida explains.

The danger lies in the fact that by accusing someone of the crime, if that person tests reactive, it is enough to prosecute them, when the only thing that is being checked is their state of health, but not whether or not they transmitted HIV.

“It is important to understand that what we are sanctioning is a belief, a hypothesis, but we are not sanctioning concrete facts,” he adds.

Promoting work with local legislatures

Antonio Matus, from the organisation AHF, maintains that the general tendency at the moment is to penalise, to punish for everything and to increase the number of crimes, so that when a criminal offence is eliminated there may be a general perception that there is injustice, which could explain the resistance in the legislative sphere to repeal this offence.

The group is currently working on legislative advocacy to present initiatives in Oaxaca, Veracruz and Guanajuato.

“Other countries have already made progress in this regard, and the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV and AIDS itself has issued several bulletins, in which, when such provisions have been repealed, UNAIDS has publicly acknowledged these actions. One of the most recent cases is in Colombia, where it issued a press statement welcoming the Colombian constitutional court’s decision to repeal the section of the penal code that criminalises HIV transmission,” Matus explained.

Having the legislative analysis in a document is very important because it makes recommendations to both state legislatures and the Congress of the Union to repeal criminal and civil provisions that stigmatize people with HIV.

Similarly, the federal Ministry of Health and CENSIDA are recommended to update NOM-010-SSA2-2010 on HIV prevention and control, which is more than 10 years old. Within it, there could be a provision that avoids criminalisation at the federal level, as it is mandatory.

On 30 April 2018, the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation set a first precedent against the criminalisation of HIV, when it declared invalid the portion of Article 158 of the criminal code of Veracruz, which punishes the crime of danger of contagion, which specifically referred to “sexually transmitted or other infections”.

This ruling followed an action of unconstitutionality brought by the National Human Rights Commission (CNDH) over the legislative reform that added the explicit reference to HIV, sexually transmitted infections and others.

For the state of Nuevo León, an appeal, also promoted by the CNDH, against Article 337 bis, reformed in the context of the pandemic by COVID-19, is still pending.

Meanwhile, in Mexico City, an initiative to repeal the crime of danger of contagion has been presented three times before the local congress without success.

This follows demonstrations and complaints from civil society organisations after the Mexico City District Attorney’s Office publicised the arrest of a man living with HIV for the crime of endangering contagion on 4 June 2021. He was later released on the basis of an injunction.

The Mexico City Council for the Prevention and Elimination of Discrimination established that the criminalisation of danger of contagion fosters a narrative of violence and discrimination, and that the criminal offence represents a repressive vision of sexuality, advancing a punishment for mere danger based on prejudice, which obeys a criminal law alien to the paradigm of human rights and contrary to the principle of dignity.

For Matus, there are all the legal and public policy elements to repeal the crime. Otherwise, if it is transferred to other types of diseases, this type of criminal offence would cause people not to get tested, hide their diagnosis and fear being punished.

The activist argues that this, on a public health level, affects all people, not just those living with HIV.

These kinds of provisions, which may have the good intention of preventing transmission, ignore advances in science, as antiretroviral treatment currently increases defences in such a way that the viral load is reduced to undetectability, a state in which the virus is no longer transmitted.

“Without wishing to point fingers or criminalise people who consider themselves victims of this type of crime, we believe that the option for our society is co-responsibility, that everyone knows, is educated, receives information and is aware of what can happen when having unprotected sex,” he concludes.

‘Peligro de contagio’, el delito que se castiga en 30 estados y organizaciones piden derogarlo para evitar estigmatización

En México, a excepción de Aguascalientes y San Luis Potosí, 30 entidades conservan la tipificación del delito de “peligro de contagio” en sus códigos penales locales, un remanente de hace décadas que solo contribuye a estigmatizar y perseguir a las personas que viven con VIH.

En Coahuila y Tamaulipas se prevén sanciones para “quien transmita el SIDA” en particular, pero otros siete estados –Baja California, Oaxaca, Zacatecas, Puebla, Veracruz, Sonora, Yucatán y Nayarit– penalizan directamente a quienes padezcan una infección de transmisión sexual y tengan conductas susceptibles de considerarse “peligrosas” para la salud de otra persona.

Zacatecas y Nayarit sancionan, además, a la mujer que con alguna enfermedad o sífilis amamante a un bebé.

En 17 estados, las sanciones penales impuestas a una persona por la presunta transmisión de una enfermedad pueden agravarse hasta con varios años de cárcel, según el estudio “La legislación mexicana en materia de VIH y sida. Su impacto en las personas viviendo con VIH”, realizado por la Red Mexicana de Organizaciones contra la Criminalización del VIH.

Peligro de contagio, delito que contribuye a la discriminación

Los códigos civiles de Baja California Sur, Guerrero y Baja California especifican la prohibición de casarse a quienes viven con VIH.

En 20 estados, a una persona con una enfermedad crónica o incurable no puede otorgársele la tutela de un menor. Por otro lado, en 19 estados es obligatorio presentar un certificado médico que especifique que no se padece alguna enfermedad como condición para casarse.

Estas restricciones posibilitan “menoscabar algunos de los derechos de las personas que viven con VIH”, advierte el documento.

En contraste, para garantizar el derecho a la no discriminación de las personas con VIH, solo 14 entidades federativas consideran como discriminatoria la aplicación de pruebas de VIH sin consentimiento o como exigencia para conseguir trabajo.

Solo 12 entidades señalan como acción discriminatoria estigmatizar o vulnerar los derechos de las personas que viven con VIH y únicamente en dos entidades han sido aprobadas y se mantienen vigentes leyes específicas en materia de VIH.

“Para empezar, el delito de contagio es un delito que está sobre un supuesto; no es un delito que sea comprobable científicamente, porque no existen las herramientas suficientes para poder determinar quién transmitió o no a otra persona un virus”, explica en entrevista Leonardo Bastida, uno de los autores del análisis.

Bastida afirma que todavía existe mucha estigmatización hacia quienes viven con VIH o tiene alguna enfermedad relacionada con un virus, como es el caso del COVID-19.

“Esto genera que la gente tenga miedo a la situación, que no le interese diagnosticarse para evitarse problemas, porque de cierta manera al ver esto como algo malo, no se genera una conducta de responsabilidad, de un cuidado personal y colectivo”.

Al mismo tiempo, se inhibe también la generación de políticas de salud pública que deberían estar enfocadas en disminuir el número de nuevas infecciones; además se manda un mensaje de negatividad, culpabilidad y castigo, cuando con los avances científicos que existen hasta ahora, la mayoría de las personas que viven con VIH puede alcanzar la indetectabilidad y, por lo tanto, intransmisibilidad del virus.

“Hay códigos que son muy específicos, que si la enfermedad es contagiosa o pone en peligro la vida de las personas; se le ponen muchos adjetivos que no corresponden a una realidad, entonces se da esta imagen de asociarlo con algo malo y que la persona que vive con VIH, por ese simple hecho, es un factor de riesgo, cuando en realidad los factores de riesgo son otros; genera un mensaje contradictorio y un poco ambiguo para la sociedad”, añade Bastida.

La mayoría de los artículos en códigos penales que sancionan el delito de “peligro de contagio” entraron en vigor entre 1920 y 1930, es decir, tienen casi 100 años de existir.

En al menos siete estados, los casos han llegado a procesos judiciales a partir de la imputación de este delito: 15 en Veracruz, 14 en Sonora, cinco en Tamaulipas, cuatro en el Estado de México, tres en Chihuahua, uno en Nuevo León y uno en Ciudad de México.

“Las fiscalías, al verlo vigente en la ley, insisten en retomarlo; y muchas veces el argumento es que la transmisión es a propósito, situación que no puede descartarse, pero para eso ya existen dentro de los propios códigos penales los delitos de lesiones, entonces podría entrar una transmisión con alevosía en esos términos. Es más claro que dejar un delito ambiguo, que además solo se basa en presuposiciones”, detalla Bastida.

El peligro radica en que con el hecho de acusar a alguien del delito, si esa persona resulta reactiva en una prueba, es suficiente para procesarla judicialmente, cuando lo único que se está comprobando es su estado de salud, pero no si transmitió o no el VIH.

“Se está sancionando una suposición; y es importante entender que lo que estamos sancionando es una creencia, una hipótesis, pero no se están sancionando hechos concretos”, añade.

Impulsan trabajo con legislaturas locales

Antonio Matus, de la organización AHF, sostiene que la tendencia general en este momento es a penalizar, a sancionar por todo y a incrementar el número de delitos, por lo que cuando se elimina un tipo penal puede existir una percepción general de que hay injusticias, lo que podría explicar las resistencias en el ámbito legislativo para derogar este delito.

Actualmente la agrupación está trabajando en la incidencia legislativa para presentar iniciativas en Oaxaca, Veracruz y Guanajuato.

“Otros países ya han avanzado en este aspecto, y el propio programa conjunto de las Naciones Unidas para el VIH y el SIDA ha emitido varios boletines; en ellos, cuando se han derogado este tipo de disposiciones, ONUSIDA ha reconocido de manera pública estas acciones. Uno de los casos más recientes es en Colombia, en donde emitió una declaración de prensa donde agradece la decisión del tribunal constitucional de Colombia de revocar la sección del código penal que criminaliza la transmisión del VIH”, explicó Matus.

Haber concretado el análisis legislativo en un documento es muy importante porque se hacen recomendaciones tanto a las legislaturas estatales como al Congreso de la Unión para derogar las disposiciones penales y civiles que estigmatizan a las personas con VIH.

Del mismo modo, a la Secretaría de Salud federal y a CENSIDA se les recomienda que actualicen la NOM-010-SSA2-2010, en materia de prevención y control del VIH, que tiene más de 10 años. Dentro de ella, podría existir una previsión que evitara la criminalización con alcance a nivel federal, pues es de observancia obligatoria.

El 30 de abril de 2018, la Suprema Corte de Justicia de la Nación sentó un primer precedente contra la criminalización del VIH, cuando declaró inválida la porción del artículo 158 del código penal de Veracruz, que sanciona el delito de peligro de contagio, que refería específicamente a “infecciones de transmisión sexual u otras”.

Esa resolución se dio a partir de una acción de inconstitucionalidad promovida por la Comisión Nacional de los Derechos Humanos (CNDH) por la reforma legislativa que agregaba la referencia explícita al VIH, las infecciones de transmisión sexual y otras.

Para el estado de Nuevo León, aún está pendiente de resolución un recurso, promovido también por la CNDH, contra el artículo 337 bis, reformado en el contexto de la pandemia por COVID-19

En tanto, en la Ciudad de México, una iniciativa para derogar el delito peligro de contagio ha sido presentada tres veces ante el congreso local sin éxito.

Esto a partir de las manifestaciones y reclamos de organizaciones de la sociedad civil tras la difusión por parte de la Fiscalía capitalina de la detención de un hombre que vivía con VIH por el delito peligro de contagio el 4 de junio de 2021. Más tarde, fue liberado gracias a un amparo.

El Consejo para prevenir y eliminar la discriminación de la Ciudad de México estableció que la tipificación del peligro de contagio fomenta una narrativa de violencia y discriminación, y que el tipo penal representa una visión represora de la sexualidad, adelantando un castigo por el mero peligro con base en un prejuicio, lo cual obedece a un derecho penal ajeno al paradigma de los derechos humanos y contrario al principio de dignidad.

Para Matus, existen todos los elementos jurídicos y de política pública para derogar el delito. De lo contrario, si se traslada a otro tipo de enfermedades, este tipo de penal provocaría que la gente no se haga pruebas, oculte su diagnóstico y tema ser sancionado.

El activista sostiene que esto a nivel de salud pública, afecta a todas las personas, no solamente a quienes viven con VIH.

Este tipo de disposiciones, que quizá tengan la buena intención de evitar la trasmisión, ignoran los avances de la ciencia, pues el tratamiento antirretroviral en este momento aumenta las defensas de tal manera que la carga viral se reduce hasta la indetectabilidad, un estado en el que ya no se transmite el virus.

“Sin ánimo de señalar o criminalizar a las personas que se consideran víctimas de este tipo de delitos, consideramos que la opción para nuestra sociedad es la corresponsabilidad, que cada quien sepa, esté educado, reciba información y tome conciencia de qué puede pasar al momento de tener relaciones sexuales no protegidas”, concluye.

Mexico: New HIV law using stigmatising and obsolete language sparks request for constitutional challenge

Request for constitutional challenge against a new HIV law in Quintana Roo

Automated translation via Deepl.com – For article in Spanish, please scroll down.

The Mexican Network against the Criminalisation of HIV and the civil association Vida Positiva Playa filed in recent days a request to the Human Rights Commission of the State of Quintana Roo and the National Human Rights Commission to file unconstitutionality actions against the “Law of Prevention, Integral Care and Control for HIV in the State of Quintana Roo”, approved unanimously by the Congress of the State of Quintana Roo, in Mexico, on 24 May this year.

Although the purposes of the law in question include promoting non-discrimination of people living with HIV and strengthening the fulfilment of their human rights, the result has been to the contrary by using false, obsolete, stigmatising and discriminatory language that is not in accordance with the 2015 UNAIDS Terminology Guidelines and articles that directly violate human rights.

The law may also spoil an efficient response to HIV and AIDS by causing confusion by not complying with the principles of taxativity, i.e. it is not precise or clear in its statements, and by contradicting in some articles national laws, norms and guidelines on HIV prevention and detection and medical care for people with HIV, which are mandatory “for all health sector institutions”.

With expressions that mention in several articles such as “contagion of HIV/AIDS” and “people living with HIV/AIDS”, this law reinforces the myths in the general population that HIV and AIDS are the same and that, because it is “contagious” (in reality it is transmissible), one can acquire both HIV and AIDS by simply living with a person living with HIV.

On the other hand, referring to people with HIV as “HIV patients” implies that the individuals in question are seriously ill and have no control over their lives (Mexico’s General Health Law only speaks of “patients” if they are terminally ill and/or hospitalised. Persons who seek medical care without having the characteristics of a patient are called “users”).

A direct violation of the human right to refuse medical treatment and procedures, also enshrined in Mexico’s General Health Law, is found in Article 14 of the new law. According to this article, HIV testing is mandatory for “patients scheduled for surgical interventions and those who are going to undergo invasive diagnostic methods” and “pregnant women, so that the product does not have a vertical transmission of HIV”. On the other hand, Article 61, paragraph 2 violates the right to confidentiality of an HIV diagnosis by obliging people who have “jobs that involve direct contact with medical-surgical instruments or biological material”, i.e. practically all medical personnel, to inform their employer of their HIV status and the employer, according to medical criteria, must “procure a change in the carrier’s working conditions”, which may also allow for the dismissal of this person for living with HIV.

Solicitan demanda de acción de inconstitucionalidad contra una nueva ley de VIH en Quintana Roo

La Red Mexicana contra la Criminalización del VIH y la asociación civil Vida Positiva Playa presentaron en los últimos días una solicitud a la Comisión de los Derechos Humanos del Estado de Quintana Roo y la Comisión Nacional de los Derechos Humanos para que interpongan acciones de inconstitucionalidad contra la “Ley de Prevención, Atención Integral y Control para el VIH del Estado de Quintana Roo”, aprobada de forma unánime por el congreso del estado de Quintana Roo, en México, el 24 de mayo de este año.

Aunque entre los propósitos de la ley en cuestión se encuentran promover la no discriminación de las personas con VIH y fortalecer el cumplimento de sus derechos humanos, el resultado ha sido contrario al usar un lenguaje falso, obsoleto, estigmatizante y discriminatorio que no está conforme a las “Orientaciones Terminológicas de Onusida” de 2015 y artículos que violan directamente derechos humanos.

La ley también puede estropear una respuesta eficiente ante el VIH y el sida por causar confusión al no cumplir con los principios de taxatividad, es decir que no es precisa ni clara en sus declaraciones, y por contradecir en algunos artículos leyes, normas y guías nacionales sobre la prevención y la detección del VIH y atención médica de las personas con VIH, las cuales son obligatorias “para todas las instituciones del sector salud”.

Con expresiones que mencionan en varios artículos como “contagio del VIH/sida” y “personas que viven con VIH/sida” la presente ley fortalece los mitos en la población general que el VIH y el sida son lo mismo y que, por ser “contagioso” (en realidad es transmisible), se puede adquirir tanto el VIH como el sida por la simple convivencia con una persona que vive con el VIH.

Por otro lado, al referirse a las personas con VIH como “pacientes del VIH” dan a entender que los individuos en cuestión están seriamente enfermos y no ejercen control sobre su vida (La Ley General de Salud de México habla únicamente de “pacientes” si son personas que padecen enfermedades terminales y/o que están hospitalizadas. Personas que acuden a la atención médica sin tener las características de un paciente, son llamados “usuarios”).

Una violación directa al derecho humano de rechazar tratamientos y procedimientos médicos, plasmado también en la Ley General de Salud de México, se encuentra en el artículo 14 de la nueva ley. Según este artículo la aplicación de la prueba del VIH es obligatoria para “pacientes programados para intervenciones quirúrgicas y aquellos que vayan a ser sometidos a métodos diagnósticos invasivo” y “mujeres embarazadas, a efecto que el producto no tenga una transmisión vertical del VIH”. Por otra parte, el artículo 61, parágrafo 2 viola el derecho a la confidencialidad de un diagnóstico del VIH al obligar a personas que tienen “puestos laborales que impliquen contacto directo con instrumental médico-quirúrgico o con material biológico”, es decir prácticamente a todo el personal médico, informar a su patrón de su condición serológica y este, según criterio médico, debe “procurar el cambio en las condiciones de trabajo del portador”, lo cual también puede permitir el despido de esta persona por vivir con VIH.

Canada: Ignoring request to wear condom violates consent and constitutes sexual assault

Breaking Agreement to Use a Condom Is a Sex Crime, Canada High Court Rules

The Supreme Court ruling is one of the strictest in a recent spate of measures addressing deceptive condom use, as courts try to define consent.

Canada: Government to seek input on how to modernize the criminal justice system’s response to HIV non-disclosure

Liberals to launch consultations on criminal justice response to HIV non-disclosure

OTTAWA – The Liberal government plans to launch consultations this October on the criminal justice system’s response to HIV non-disclosure.

Justice Minister David Lametti made the commitment as he met interested parties this week in the lead-up to the International AIDS Conference in Montreal on the weekend.

The consultations will seek input on how to modernize the criminal justice system’s response to the non-disclosure of HIV status, in light of growing scientific evidence related to the risk of sexual transmission of HIV, the virus that causes AIDS.

As the law is currently written, people who do not disclose their HIV status before having sex can be prosecuted for aggravated sexual assault, the most serious type of sexual offence in the Criminal Code — even in cases where there is little to no possibility of transmission, no intent to transmit and no actual transmission.

The way the law is enforced is “extremely punitive and overbroad,” said India Annamanthadoo, a policy analyst with the HIV Legal Network, noting advocates are aware of more than 200 cases being prosecuted since 1989.

Annamanthadoo said in an interview that the consultation is a good first step by the federal government, but it is not enough.

“We need to act swiftly and urgently,” she said. “So what we’re hoping is that this consultation is not going to be something that’s protracted, but rather something that leads to swift legislative reform.”

The Canadian Coalition to Reform HIV Criminalization, of which the HIV Legal Network is a part, said in a statement Wednesday that the government must recognize “we are not starting from scratch.”

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

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

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

The successes

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

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

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

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

The challenges

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Acknowlegements

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

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

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

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

US: Indiana legislators to meet this autumn to study for the first time the state’s HIV laws

Study committee to review Indiana’s HIV laws

Indiana legislators will meet this fall to study for the first time the state’s laws concerning HIV.

Current scientific knowledge has resulted in existing laws being outdated, critics say.

Human immunodeficiency virus, or HIV, was first officially reported in the United States in the early 1980s. The virus attacks the body’s immune system. If left untreated, HIV can lead to acquired immunodeficiency syndrome, or AIDS.

During the early years of the epidemic, information was scarce and often incomplete, particularly among the general public. And back then, there were no effective treatments for the virus.

In a letter earlier this year to House Speaker Todd Huston, a group of lawmakers wrote that states – including Indiana – “enacted HIV-specific criminal laws based on the perception of HIV at the time.”

The legislators characterized it as “a time of fear and stigma,” and many commonly held beliefs in the latter decades of the 20th century are now known to be inaccurate.

State Rep. Ed Clere, one of 16 legislators who signed the letter, said a group of lawmakers wrote a similar letter last summer, but that effort went nowhere.

That could all change as early as next year after Huston assigned the Interim Study Committee on Corrections and Criminal Code to review the laws governing HIV. The review will include “provisions related to biting, spitting, donating organs and donating blood.”

Existing HIV laws

Dr. Carrie Foote, chairwoman of the state’s HIV Modernization Movement, has long advocated for changes to Indiana’s criminal and public health codes.

The professor of sociology at Indiana University–Purdue University Indianapolis has been living with HIV since 1988 – the same year Indiana first enacted one of the statutes she hopes to see changed.

That 1988 law makes it a felony for a person living with HIV to donate bodily fluids, including blood, semen and plasma.

The Indiana Region of the American Red Cross said the organization carefully follows FDA guidelines for blood collection and testing.

“There is a patchwork of laws in the U.S. concerning disclosure of HIV status when presenting to donate blood. A small number of states criminalize such behavior, but most do not,” the nonprofit said in a statement. “Furthermore, criminalization is not an FDA-required measure. Therefore, the Red Cross does not rely on HIV criminalization statutes to protect the blood supply due to inconsistent laws.”

Some other laws enacted later are similarly outdated, Foote said. Those include HIV-related enhancements in the state’s malicious mischief statute determining punishments for exposing people to bodily fluids.

Another criminal law adds enhancements to previously existing state statute on battery, which makes it a misdemeanor when a person “in a rude, insolent, or angry manner places any bodily fluid or waste on another person” – basically, for spitting on someone.

However, that charge is enhanced to a felony if the perpetrator is living with HIV, hepatitis or tuberculosis. It’s further enhanced if a person living with HIV spits on a public safety official.

In effect, those enhancements can add years to the sentencing range for a person who is living with HIV – even though scientists now know HIV cannot be transmitted through saliva.

Foote believes people living with HIV are punished too harshly solely based on those laws.

Michael Moore, assistant executive director of the Indiana Public Defenders Council, said those sentencing enhancements apply if a person “knew or should have known” their HIV status.

Foote thinks some people living with HIV believe they can avoid such enhancements by remaining unaware of their HIV status. As a result, she said, “take the test and risk arrest” is a common mindset as a lack of knowledge can serve as a defense against Indiana’s HIV laws.

“Stigma keeps people from getting tested, keeps people from getting into care,” Foote said. “These laws that remain on the books from the ’80s and the ’90s in the early years, not one study has shown that they have any kind of prevention benefit.”

Foote also criticized the state’s laws requiring people living with HIV to disclose their status before engaging in sexual activity or sharing needles. The existing statute results in the criminal justice system viewing people as “guilty until proven innocent” when charged under those disclosure laws, she said.

Foote believes the burden is on the defense to prove innocence in HIV disclosure cases.

“Whereas, normally in criminal law,” she said, “you’re innocent until proven guilty.”

Fighting the stigma

Jeff Markley serves as executive director of the Positive Resource Connection, a local service organization which provides case management, prevention and education services for HIV, AIDS, hepatitis and other diseases in northeast Indiana.

“If you’re not … able to transmit the virus” through various outlawed acts, Markley said, “then the laws need to be changed to reflect that so that you’re not charged with something that is just not a real threat to anyone.”

Along with newer scientific knowledge about the virus, modern medical advances have significantly changed the outlook for people living with HIV.

“For someone who’s newly diagnosed today, with effective treatment they can live just as long as anybody without HIV. Life expectancy is the same, is normalized with treatment,” Foote said. “We also know that not only does treatment keep us alive and well, treatment is also prevention.”

Foote calls this U=U, or undetectable equals untransmittable. According to the National Institutes of Health, new research shows people with an undetectable viral load cannot sexually transmit HIV.

“Even things that might transmit HIV, like certain sexual behaviors and acts, when we’re treated, we essentially become unable to transmit the virus,” Foote said. “It’s almost like a functional cure in a way.”

Despite scientific advances, Foote said the stigma surrounding HIV still discourages people from getting tested.

“When you know your status, we can get into care, we can get on treatment,” Foote said. “We know that treatment is prevention. We need people to get tested if we want to end the epidemic.”

Markley said people still fear disclosure – even though there is less stigma around HIV than there was 30 years ago.

“People still have a fear about what might happen if they would disclose their status,” Markley said. “From an epidemiological standpoint, with very few (exceptions), there’s really not a need for anybody to disclose their status.”

He said people living with HIV haven’t forgotten the 1980s and 1990s: “the prejudice and the hate and the discrimination that occurred.”

“You’re always going to have some pockets of individuals who are not as informed or can’t quite wrap their head around all of the science and the information,” Markley said. “Sometimes they tend to be pretty loud and vocal and can make things difficult for other individuals.”

Looking forward

Since 2018, Rep. Clere has introduced multiple bills addressing HIV and the Indiana code. Some have passed, including House Bill 1340 in 2021.

That bill eliminated “stigmatizing language” from the code, Foote said. The new version uses “people first language” – for example, changing the wording from “carriers” to “people living with” HIV or other communicable diseases.

This year, though, a bill to remove HIV-related sentencing enhancements and repeal laws prohibiting people living with HIV from donating bodily fluids died in the House after making it out of committee.

This year’s study committee could be a turning point, Foote said. The fast-paced and brief regular session at the statehouse often leaves little time for in-depth discussion – particularly about HIV, a topic many legislators don’t have extensive knowledge about.

“There’s very little time to talk to the legislators,” Foote said, “to explain to them, ‘Here’s what we’re doing … Things have changed around HIV; we’re not in the 80s anymore.’ ”

The study committee will provide more of an opportunity to bring in experts and educate lawmakers, she said. Clere said the committee will allow for more extensive testimony on HIV.

“It’s exactly the sort of thing that we should be studying in the interim study process,” he said. “(It) offers an opportunity to take a more measured and thoughtful look at issues.”

Clere hopes the committee will help dispel outdated ideas about HIV.

“I’m optimistic that the study process will help address the fear and stigma, the stereotypes and the misinformation … and really get everyone up to speed on the science,” he said.

The Modernization Movement’s ultimate goal is to repeal and replace the state’s old HIV laws. Foote said any new statutes should not be based on HIV status. Instead, she said, they should incorporate the idea of intent and the possibility of harm.

“We’re not saying anyone that goes out and intentionally tries to harm another person – yeah, they should be tried just like anyone else who attempted to harm somebody in any other way,” Foote said. “But right now, the way these laws are written in Indiana, they don’t take that into account.”

She’s “extremely optimistic” about the possibility of a modernization bill passing during next year’s legislative session. Foote views it as a bipartisan issue. Although some lawmakers might be initially hesitant, she hasn’t seen strong opposition to the changes.

“Going into the next session, particularly because we have this study session, we’re going to make a lot of headway there,” Foote said. “So when we do go in, folks will understand a little bit better, and we’ll have more people (saying), ‘Yeah, we fully support that. Let’s move these forward.’ ”

Argentina: New HIV and STI law approved

Senate signed comprehensive HIV response into law

Automated Google translation – Scroll down for original article in Spanish

The bill was approved with 60 votes in favor and only 1 against. It also includes Viral Hepatitis, other Sexually Transmitted Infections and Tuberculosis. It repeals Law 23,798 that had been sanctioned in 1990.

The Chamber of Senators signed into law this Thursday the Comprehensive Response to HIV, Viral Hepatitis, other Sexually Transmitted Infections and Tuberculosis project that repeals the current rule 23,798 sanctioned in 1990. The initiative obtained 60 votes in favor and only one against the Senator Humberto Schiavoni, head of the Pro bloc.

The new president of the Health Commission, Pablo Yedlin from Tucuman, opened the round of speakers by stating that it is a “very important” issue that “has an old legislative history with a disease that is quite modern and that the HIV law that governs , it was historic because it allowed at a very hard time because we did not have many tools for treatment, to prevent vertical transmission from mothers to children, we did not have tools to cure this disease and many died from it.

Regarding the current law, he pointed out that “after 30 years it has aged well, it is very important, and it allowed patients who live with the virus to have access, from the State, to their treatments and it was a pioneering law in the world and without doubt in the region.

Along these lines, he thanked the civil organizations that “throughout Argentina have been fighting an important battle in search of their rights, to obtain this new law, which sometimes cost them to arrive, such as tests, condoms, over the years.”

“It is estimated that there are 140,000 people who live with the virus, 17% of this number are unaware of the diagnosis, perpetuating the cycle of infections. Unfortunately, 30% of the patients who are diagnosed do so in the late period of the disease and this makes treatment difficult. 65% are treated in the public sector,” described Yedlin and thanked the public health system that “takes care of serious health problems.”

And he continued: “4,500 cases are diagnosed per year with a rate of 11 per 100 inhabitants and the mortality rate from AIDS is getting lower and lower, and today it is declining at 2.8 per 100,000 inhabitants”, but he pointed out that “it is not the same in all the provinces because the AIDS mortality rate shows severe inequities in the country, that is why we must continue working on regulations that allow the country to be more equitable”.

“This law was worked on in consensus with all the political blocs”, highlighted the man from Tucuman and lamented that he lost “three times he lost parliamentary status and had to be represented”. Likewise, he compared the new initiative with the current law: “It is not only a law for HIV, but also for other sexually transmitted diseases that suffer some type of neglect, such as hepatitis B, which are very expensive to treat and are incorporated to have the same right”.

And he continued: “It is a law that, in addition to declaring the treatment in a national public way, the diagnosis is also declared by the development, the research, the medicines. It gives a comprehensive response, new combined methods”.

“We are making a law so that all patients can have access to a special retirement system that will allow those who age prematurely, with 50 years and 20 years of contributions, to access a retirement system. Those patients who have the virus or hepatitis B or C will have access to a non-contributory lifetime pension and are socially vulnerable. This law creates a National Monitoring Commission made up of different ministries and civil society”, explained the man from Tucuman and closed: “ It is a law that tries to overcome political cries and we all agree that patients deserve rights and we are doing justice for the law to materialize ”.

In his turn, the vice president of the Health Commission, Mario Fiad from Jujuy , advanced his positive vote because “this law came to update the current Law that has been in force for many years and that has the addition of including viral hepatitis B and C, other sexually transmitted infections and tuberculosis from a human rights perspective”.

However, he considered that “we are arriving late” because “we do not need these laws to know that the universe of these people who are affected by these pathologies have their enshrined rights.”

“Estamos legislando sobre temas ya legislados y, sobre todo, lo que es indiscutiblemente obligatorio e imperativo del Estado, y por eso nos surgen interrogantes ¿por qué no se logran hacer operativos todos esos derechos? ¿por qué razón los Diputados tenían que considerar necesario incluir un capítulo de sanciones en la Ley de VIH y Hepatitis tuberculosis para que la ley sea vigente y no tenga posibilidades de trabajar, ¿por qué no se cumple con la tarea de fiscalización y monitoreo por parte del Poder Ejecutivo para hacer que se cumpla la norma? por que los pacientes recurren cada vez más a la justicia para que, por vía de amparo, tengan el cumplimiento de las leyes”, explayó con críticas Fiad.

In addition, he questioned that “we have a universe of health laws that are not complied with” and pointed out the time it takes to regulate. “This has to call us to reflection, we have to monitor health regulations to be able to evaluate compliance,” she said.

In her speech, Silvina García Larraburu (FdT) from Rio Negro said: “We will be closing the day with a fairer, more equitable, more egalitarian country, without a doubt all the projects are very important and fundamental for a large number of people who They are militating and working to achieve the best project”

In turn, he said that he has been presenting initiatives since 2016 and mentioned that the project was worked on with more than 50 organizations. “The national AIDS law was a pioneer at the time, but after more than 30 years it needed a change because the health paradigm of human rights, in every sense, needed modernization. It had content that turned out to stigmatize you”, and compared that “the new law has a focus on human rights and a gender perspective. This legislation is going to be a model to imitate and one of the best legislations in the world”.

Tucuman Sandra Mendoza (FdT) described that “this law is a historical reparation to all the people who suffered and continue to suffer discrimination, stigma, fear and ignorance about HIV. It is a law that will dignify and save lives to have a fairer and more supportive Argentina”.

The project

Through the new law, Law 23,798, which had declared the fight against AIDS of national interest, and was sanctioned in 1990, is repealed.

In addition to HIV, the new law incorporates viral hepatitis, tuberculosis and sexually transmitted infections (STIs).

According to the text, “comprehensive and intersectoral response” and universal and free coverage of comprehensive assistance -medicines, supplies, vaccines, treatments, etc- are foreseen.

The rule prohibits the performance of the diagnostic test in pre-employment medical examinations, as well as during the course and as part of the employment relationship.

Nor can any educational institution, public or private, request it as a requirement for entry, permanence, promotion or for access to scholarships.

The diagnostic test will be voluntary, only with the consent of the person; free in all health subsystems; confidential; universal; and carried out with due individual advice before and after the test.

On the other hand, an exceptional early retirement is established for people with HIV and/or hepatitis B and/or C, which can be accessed from the age of 50, with proof of 20 years of contributions and 10 years after the diagnosis has elapsed. Retirement will be incompatible with those who have a job in a dependency relationship.

Likewise, a non-contributory lifetime pension is created for those who are in a situation of social vulnerability.

Among other points, the law states that every woman and/or person with the capacity to gestate must receive the necessary health information, related to their health, as well as that of their child, both during pregnancy and postpartum.

Also, every child born to a woman or person with the ability to gestate with HIV and/or Hepatitis B or C will have the right to free access to formula milk during the first 18 months.

The new law can be viewed here

El Senado convirtió en ley la respuesta integral al VIH

La norma fue aprobada con 60 votos a favor y 1 solo en contra. También incluye Hepatitis Virales, otras infecciones de Transmisión Sexual y Tuberculosis. La misma deroga la Ley 23.798 que había sido sancionada en el año 1990.

La Cámara de Senadores convirtió en ley este jueves el proyecto de Respuesta Integral al VIH, Hepatitis Virales, otras infecciones de Transmisión Sexual y Tuberculosis que deroga la actual norma 23.798 sancionada en 1990. La iniciativa obtuvo 60 votos a favor y uno solo en contra del senador Humberto Schiavoni, jefe del bloque Pro.

Flamante presidente de la Comisión de Salud, el tucumano Pablo Yedlin, abrió la ronda de oradores al sostener que es un tema “muy importante” que “tiene una vieja historia legislativa con una enfermedad que es bastante moderna y que la ley de VIH que rige, fue histórica porque permitió en un momento muy duro porque no teníamos muchas herramientas para el tratamiento, para evitar la transmisión vertical de madres a hijos, no teníamos herramientas para curar esta enfermedad y muchos fallecieron por ella”.

Respecto a la vigente ley señaló que “después de 30 años ha envejecido bien, es muy importante, y permitió que los pacientes que conviven con el virus tengan acceso, desde el Estado, a sus tratamientos y fue una ley precursora en el mundo y sin duda en la región”.

En esa línea, agradeció a las organizaciones civiles que “a lo largo y ancho de la Argentina vienen dando una batalla importante en busca de sus derechos, de conseguir esta nueva ley, lo que a veces costaba que lleguen como los test, los preservativos, a lo largo de los años”.

“Se estima que hay 140 mil personas que conviven con el virus, 17% de este número desconoce el diagnóstico perpetuando el ciclo de contagios. Un 30% de los pacientes que se diagnostican, lamentablemente lo hacen en período tardíos de la enfermedad y eso dificulta el tratamiento. Un 65% se atiende en el sector público”, describió Yedlin y agradeció al sistema de salud público que “se hace cargo de los problemas graves de salud”.

Y continuó: “Se diagnostican por año 4.500 casos con una tasa por 100 habitantes de 11 y la tasa de mortalidad por SIDA cada vez es menor y que viene disminuyendo hoy esta en 2.8 cada 100 mil habitantes”, pero señaló que “no es igual en todas las provincias porque la tasa de mortalidad por SIDA muestra severas inequidades en el país por eso debemos seguir trabajado en normas que permitan que el país sea más equitativo”.

“Esta ley fue trabajada en el consenso con todos los bloques políticos”, destacó el tucumano y lamentó que perdió “tres veces perdió estado parlamentario y tuvo que ser representada”. Asimismo, comparó la nueva iniciativa con la ley actual: “No es solo una ley de VIH, sino también de otras enfermedades de transmisión sexual que sufre algún tipo de desatención como hepatitis B, que son muy costosas en su tratamiento y se incorporan a tener el mismo derecho”.

Y siguió: “Es una ley que, además de declarar de forma público nacional el tratamiento, el diagnóstico también lo declara el desarrollo, la investigación, los medicamentos. Da una respuesta integral, nuevos métodos combinados”.

“Estamos haciendo una ley para que a todos los pacientes puedan tener acceso a un sistema de jubilación especial que les va a permitir, a los que envejecen prematuramente, que con 50 años y 20 años de aportes puedan acceder a un sistema jubilatorio. Accederán a una pensión no contributiva vitalicia aquellos pacientes que tienen el virus o hepatitis b o c y tiene vulnerabilidad social. Crea esta ley una Comisión Nacional de Seguimiento integrada por distintos ministerios y la sociedad civil”, explicó el tucumano y cerró: “Es una ley que intenta superar la grita política y todos estamos de acuerdo en que los pacientes merecen los derechos y estamos haciendo justicia de que la ley se concrete”.

A su turno, el vicepresidente de la Comisión de Salud, el jujeño Mario Fiad, adelantó su voto positivo porque “esta ley vino a actualizar la Ley vigente que lleva muchos años y que tiene el adicional de incluir a las hepatitis virales B y C, a otras infecciones de transmisión sexual y a la tuberculosis desde una perspectiva de derechos humanos”.

Sin embargo, consideró que “estamos llegando tarde” porque “no necesitamos de estas leyes para saber que el universo de estas personas que, están afectadas por estas patologías, tienen sus derechos consagrados”.

Además, cuestionó que “tenemos un universo de leyes en salud que no se cumplen” y apuntó contra el tiempo que tardan en reglamentarse. “Esto nos tiene que llamar a una reflexión, tenemos que hacer un seguimiento de la normativa sanitaria para poder evaluar el cumplimiento”, sostuvo.

En su intervención, la rionegrina Silvina García Larraburu (FdT) expresó: “Vamos a estar cerrando la jornada con un país más justo, más equitativo, mas igualitario, sin duda todos los proyectos son muy importantes y fundamentales para un gran numero de personas que vienen militando y trabajando para lograr el mejor proyecto”

A su vez, contó que viene presentando iniciativas desde el 2016 y mencionó que se trabajó el proyecto con más de 50 organizaciones. “La ley nacional de sida fue pionera en su momento, pero luego de más de 30 años necesitaba un cambio porque el paradigma sanitario de derechos humanos, en todo sentido, necesitaba una modernización. Tenía contenidos que resultaban estigmatizarte”, y comparó que “la nueva ley tiene un enfoque en derechos humanos y perspectiva de género. Esta legislación va a ser un modelo a imitar y una de las mejores legislaciones del mundo”.

La tucumana Sandra Mendoza (FdT) describió que “esta ley es una reparación histórica a todas las personas que sufrieron y sufren la discriminación, el estigma, el miedo y desconocimiento en torno al VIH. Es una ley que dignificará y salvará vidas para tener una Argentina más justa y solidaria”.

El proyecto

A través de la nueva norma queda derogada la Ley 23.798, que había declarado de interés nacional la lucha contra el SIDA, y fue sancionada en el año 1990.

Además del VIH, la nueva ley incorpora a las hepatitis virales, la tuberculosis y las infecciones de transmisión sexual (ITS).

De acuerdo al texto, se prevé “la respuesta integral e intersectorial” y la cobertura universal y gratuita de una asistencia integral -medicamentos, insumos, vacunas, tratamientos, etc-.

La norma prohíbe la realización de la prueba diagnóstico en los exámenes médicos pre-ocupacionales, como así también durante el transcurso y como parte de la relación laboral.

Tampoco podrá solicitarla ninguna institución educativa, pública o privada, como requisito de ingreso, permanencia, promoción o para el acceso a becas.

La prueba diagnóstico será voluntaria, solo con consentimiento de la persona; gratuita en todos los subsistemas de salud; confidencial; universal; y realizada con el debido asesoramiento individual pre y post test.

Por otra parte, se establece una jubilación anticipada de carácter excepcional para las personas con VIH y/o hepatitis B y/o C, a la que se podrá acceder a partir de los 50 años, con acreditación de 20 años de aportes y 10 años de transcurrido el diagnóstico. La jubilación resultará incompatible con quien tengan un trabajo en relación de dependencia.

Asimismo, se crea una pensión de carácter vitalicio y no contributivo para quienes se encuentren en situación de vulnerabilidad social.

Entre otros puntos, la ley plantea que toda mujer y/o persona con capacidad de gestar deberá recibir la información sanitaria necesaria, vinculada a su salud, como a la de su hijo/a, tanto en el embarazo como en el posparto.

También, todo/a hijo/a nacido de mujer o persona con capacidad de gestar con VIH y/o Hepatitis B o C tendrá derecho a acceder de manera gratuita a la leche de fórmula durante los primeros 18 meses.

US: New study from the Williams Institute analyses data on HIV criminalization in Tennessee

Enforcement of HIV Criminalization in Tennessee

Tennessee’s two primary HIV criminalization laws—aggravated prostitution and criminal exposure—are considered a “violent sexual offense” and require a person convicted to register as a sex offender for life. Using data obtained from Tennessee’s sex offender registry, this study examines the enforcement of HIV criminalization laws in Tennessee from 1991 to 2022.

To read the full report, please go to: https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/publications/hiv-criminalization-tennessee/