The deputies Ana Francis López and Temístocles Villanueva, from Morena, presented an initiative to eliminate the penalties of three months to 10 years in prison stipulated in the Penal Code against those who transmit the Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) to another person, even when having knowledge of their diagnosis.
Although the law is not explicit in mentioning HIV as a transmission that warrants imprisonment, it has been used to initiate proceedings against people living with the virus.
As was the case of a man who was arrested by the Attorney General’s Office on June 3, for incurring “danger of contagion.”
The deputies accuse the law to be ambiguous. They point out that the term “incurable diseases” is imprecise, and gives rise to the jurisdictional authority deciding which are the diseases that are considered serious.
The initiative of López and Villanueva proposes to reform Article 76 in order to eliminate the penalties for danger of contagion and to repeal Article 159 of the Penal Code of Mexico City; it was turned over to the Commissions for the Procurement and Administration of Justice for analysis.
Civil organisations have fought for this repeal, something recommended by UNAIDS, since they state that it criminalises those living with HIV, .
“The Joint United Nations Program on HIV and AIDS has insisted that countries must carry out reforms and make commitments in the framework of the 2030 Agenda for sustainable development, in order to eliminate discriminatory laws,” they quote in the proposal.
Van contra penas por transmisión de VIH
Los diputados Ana Francis López y Temístocles Villanueva, de Morena, presentaron una iniciativa para eliminar las penas de tres meses a 10 años de prisión contempladas en el Código Penal en contra de quienes transmitan el Virus de Inmunodeficiencia Humana (VIH) a otra persona, aun teniendo conocimiento de su diagnóstico.
Aunque la ley no es explícita al mencionar al VIH como una transmisión que amerite prisión, se ha utilizado para iniciar procedimientos contras personas que viven con el virus.
Como lo fue el caso de un hombre que fue detenido por la Fiscalía General de Justicia el 3 de junio pasado, por incurrir en “peligro de contagio”.
Los diputados acusan que la ley es ambigua, pues señalan que el término “enfermedades incurables” es impreciso, lo que da pie a que la autoridad jurisdiccional decida cuales son las enfermedades que se consideran graves.
La iniciativa de López y Villanueva propone reformar el Artículo 76 para eliminar las penas por peligro de contagio y derogar el Artículo 159 del Código Penal de la Ciudad de México; fue turnada a las comisiones de Procuración y Administración de Justicia para su análisis.
Organizaciones civiles han pugnado por esta derogación, ya que acusan que criminaliza a quienes viven con VIH, algo que ONUSIDA ha recomendado.
“El Programa Conjunto de las Naciones Unidas para el VIH y el SIDA ha insistido en que los países deben realizar reformas y adquirir compromisos en el marco de la Agenda 2030 para el desarrollo sostenible, con el fin de eliminar las leyes discriminatorias”, citan en la propuesta.
UPDATE: Speakers now confirmed for #BeyondBlame2021!
Beyond Blame, our flagship meeting for activists, human rights defenders, criminal legal system and public health system actors, healthcare professionals, researchers, and anyone else working to end HIV criminalisation, is returning for a special eve-of-World AIDS Day edition.
Beyond Blame is a unique opportunity to learn why HIV criminalisation matters, as well as hear about the wide range of initiatives and strategies that have been used by activists, lawyers, networks, and organisations around the world to work towards ending the inappropriate use of criminal law to regulate and punish people living with HIV.
We will be highlighting some of the successes and challenges of the global movement to end HIV criminalisation over the past year, including work on ending the criminalisation of women living with HIV for breastfeeding, exploring whether scientific advances, such as the prevention benefit of treatment (U=U) and Molecular HIV Surveillance, help or hinder our movement and much, much more.
Beyond Blame will take place in English, with interpretation available in French, Russian and Spanish.
43. The Committee welcomes the decision of the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of 27 January 2021 to declare unconstitutional the provisions precluding persons living with HIV/AIDS from adoption, guardianship and foster parenting. However, the Committee is concerned about the criminalisation of HIV/AIDS transmission through consensual sexual relations between adults, impediments to access to healthcare, discriminatory terminology, reported isolation from children and barriers to access childcare facilities for women living with HIV/AIDS.
44. The Committee recommends that the State party:
(a) Decriminalise the transmission of HIV/AIDS (article 149 of the Criminal Code) through consensual sexual relations between adults;
(b) Ensure access to healthcare, including confidential testing, antiretroviral treatment, psychological support and the confidentiality of information regarding women’s HIV status, and impose deterrent penalties for the disclosure of such status;
(c) Eliminate repressive elements of epidemiological investigation and review the wording of HIV infection codes;
(d) Ensure that women living with HIV/AIDS are not isolated from their children based on their HIV status and have adequate access to childcare facilities free from stigmatization; and
(e) Prohibit the practice of employers requiring HIV certificates for accessing and keeping employment.
In September 2021 EWNA jointly with Women’s Network of Key Communities submitted the alternative report with particular focus on HIV criminalisation in Kyrgyzstan
Mexico: “Danger of contagion”, an offence under article 159 of the Penal Code of Mexico Federal District, declared unconstitutional
Judge grants protection to person accused of HIV infection
Automatic translation – For original text in Spanish, please scroll down.
Judge declares the crime indicated in the penal code of Mexico City as unconstitutional for violating fundamental rights.
The firm Ramírez, Penilla, Rubio, Cuadra, Abogados, S.C. reported that on October 4 they were notified of the sentence issued by the titular Judge of the Sixteenth District Court of Amparo in Criminal Matters of Mexico City in the protection trial filed in favor of Juan N, who was linked to the process in June this year for the crime of danger of contagion.
They indicated that the sentence establishes, among other things, the unconstitutionality of the crime of danger of contagion established in article 159 of the Penal Code for the Federal District because the contested norm does not approve the constitutional and conventional standards of suitability and proportionality as it violates of the first article of the Political Constitution of the United Mexican States and of the 26 of the American Convention of Human Rights.
“We congratulate ourselves for the issuance of this jurisdictional decision that reflects the recognition of human rights in the broadest spectrum and we urge that this important precedent be translated into the elimination of all forms of discrimination and criminalization of the health condition of women. people, “they celebrated.
Finally, the lawyer Olivia Rubio ratified the commitment of her signature in obtaining justice, especially for those who belong to priority attention groups.
Jueza concede amparo a persona acusada de contagio de VIH
Declara inconstitucional delito señalado en el código penal de la ciudad de México por contravenir derechos fundamentales.
El despacho Ramírez, Penilla, Rubio, Cuadra, Abogados, S.C. informó que el 4 de octubre fueron notificados de la sentencia emitida por la Jueza titular del Juzgado Decimosexto de Distrito de Amparo en Materia Penal de la Ciudad de México en el juicio de amparo interpuesto a favor de Juan N, quien fue vinculado a proceso en junio de este año por el delito de peligro de contagio.
Señalaron que la sentencia establece, entre otras cosas, la inconstitucionalidad del delito de peligro de contagio establecido en el artículo 159 del Código Penal para el Distrito Federal debido a que la norma combatida no aprueba los estándares constitucionales y convencionales de idoneidad y proporcionalidad al ser violatoria del artículo primero de la Constitución Política de los Estados Unidos Mexicanos y del 26 de la Convención Americana de los Derechos Humanos.
“Nos congratulamos por la emisión de esta decisión jurisdiccional que es reflejo del reconocimiento de los derechos humanos en el espectro más amplio e instamos para que este importante precedente se traduzca en la eliminación de toda forma de discriminación y criminalización de la condición de salud de las personas”, celebraron.
Finalmente, la abogada Olivia Rubio ratificó el compromiso de su firma en la obtención de justicia, especialmente para quienes pertenecen a grupos de atención prioritaria.
Report: End HIV criminalisation to address LGBT+ inequities
A new report published by the Global Equality Caucus examines what elected officials can do to ensure LGBT+ people receive equitable access to HIV healthcare.
The report notes that HIV criminalisation laws are “out of step with modern scientific understanding and perpetuate outdated HIV stigmas.” Removing such laws would help to tackle prejudice and refocus HIV as a public health crisis.
Also relevant to our ongoing work on molecular HIV surveillance, the report further recommends that where data is collected, anonymity should always be assured, and “this applies to HIV testing, immigration status, or whatever other circumstances that may place LGBT+ people in danger should their health data be shared with other government authorities.”
Parliamentarians have a responsibility to ensure government departments respect the privacy of citizens and that health data is not being shared with agencies that could present additional barriers to the lives of LGBT+ people, such as immigration authorities or justice departments.
US: New Jersey’s Acting Attorney General issues science-informed prosecutorial guidance for application of HIV criminalisation law
New Guidance on Prosecuting HIV Crimes in New Jersey
In stressing U=U, New Jersey’s acting attorney general wants to ensure that no one living with HIV is charged unjustly.
New Jersey’s Acting Attorney General Andrew Bruck issued new guidance regarding enforcement of a 24-year-old law that criminalizes certain activities by people living with HIV, according to a press release from Bruck’s office.
Specifically, the guidance directs prosecutors to take into account three factors when deciding whether to charge someone under the state’s HIV crime law. The guidance is based on modern scientific knowledge about how HIV is and isn’t contracted—notably that people who maintain an undetectable viral load do no transmit HIV via sex, a fact known as Undetectable Equals Untransmittable, or U=U. What’s more, the guidance follows the lead of several professional organizations, including the American Medical Association, the American Psychological Association and the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division.
The state law in question is NJSA 2C:34-5(b). Enacted in 1997, the law “made it a third-degree crime for an individual living with HIV to engage in an ‘act of sexual penetration’ without the informed consent of their partner,” according to the two-page guidance, which adds that the disease was then thought to be a death sentence.
Thanks to modern treatment, HIV mortality and transmission risk have been greatly reduced. However, the guidance continues, stigma remains a public health challenge and crime laws discourage people from getting tested and accessing treatment.
The guidance then states:
Of course, NJSA 2C:34-5(b) remains on the books, and it is the responsibility of the legislature—not prosecutors—to decide whether and how the law should be modified. And while relatively few individuals are charged with violating NJSA 2C:34-5(b), it is helpful to provide statewide guidance to ensure that its enforcement does not undermine current public-health strategies.
As always, prosecutors retain significant discretion in deciding whether and under what circumstances to charge individuals with certain criminal offenses. In deciding whether to charge a violation of NJSA 2C:34-5(b), prosecutors should consider the following factors:
• Whether the individual forced or coerced their partner to engage in sexual activity;
• Whether the individual engaged in sexual activity for the purpose of transmitting HIV to their partner; and/or
• Whether the individual was adhering to a medically appropriate HIV treatment plan at the time of the sexual activity.
It is virtually impossible to imagine a scenario where it would be appropriate for a prosecutor to charge an individual with NJSA 2C:34-5(b) when that person’s HIV viral load was undetectable at the time of the sexual activity and no aggravating factors existed. Prosecutors who are considering criminal charges in such circumstances must consult with the Director of the Division of Criminal Justice before proceeding.
“This guidance is designed to ensure that people are not prosecuted unjustly and that we do not undermine public health strategies aimed at encouraging testing, treatment and prevention,” the acting attorney general said in the press release.
“The guidance that we are providing to prosecutors makes clear that this state law should be enforced only when specific aggravating factors are present,” added director Lyndsay Ruotolo of the Division of Criminal Justice. “Our goal is to ensure that if anyone living with HIV is criminally charged under this statute, it is done justly and consistently.”
“We recognize that 40 years after the first…reported AIDS case in this country, medical advancements have dramatically changed outcomes for individuals living with HIV. However, outdated laws such as this have remained on the books and are highly discriminatory, have not proven to reduce HIV transmission and discourage individuals from learning their HIV status,” said Hudson County prosecutor Esther Suarez, president of the County Prosecutors Association of New Jersey. “Acting Attorney General Bruck’s guidance issued today will ensure that individuals living with HIV in New Jersey are not unjustly stigmatized or prosecuted and will reinforce public health protocols that are critical to sustaining the progress made in treatment of this disease.”
US: Pennsylvania House Democratic Policy Committee hears testimonies against HIV criminalisation laws
‘HIV is not a crime’: Pennsylvania House panel tackles outdated laws targeting those living with the virus
‘HIV is not a crime but there are outdated laws that make it a crime in Pennsylvania. We cannot have people losing lives and livelihoods because of this,’ Rep. Malcolm Kenyatta said.
About 20 people gathered Wednesday in the East Wing of the State Capitol to unveil the “Living a Positive Life” mural commissioned by the Family Health Council as part of its Take Control of HIV campaign.
The mural is full of colorful graphics and messaging regarding the importance of open communication about HIV. On display at the capitol for the month of October, the goal of the mural is to empowers individuals to thrive no matter their HIV status.
The mural was created by well-known Harrisburg-based artist Stephen Michael Haas, a multi-disciplined artist inspired by the likes of late 90s cartoons and Super Mario’s squirrels.
“Whether infected long-term or a more recently, there is hope like never before,” Fonzi told the Capital-Star. Current medications can control HIV to the point where the virus is ‘undetectable’ on a lab test.
Furthering the push by HIV service organizations is the scientifically researched concept of Undetectable = Untransmittable or U=U for shorthand. More than 750 organizations worldwide, according to aidsmap.com, and including the U.S. National Institutes of Health, the Centers of Disease Control, and the World Health Organization “agree that people with HIV whose viral load is stably suppressed cannot sexually transmit the virus.”
In non-professional terms, U=U means “if a person with HIV is on HIV meds (antiretroviral therapy, or ART) with a consistently undetectable HIV viral load, the virus cannot be transmitted to a sex partner,” according to the US Dept. of Veteran’s Affairs.
Change outdated laws?
Although not coordinated with the mural’s unveiling, transmitting HIV to a sexual partner formed the basis of a hearing held the same morning before the House Democratic Policy Committee under the direction of Philadelphia Democratic Reps. Mary Isaacson and Rep. Malcolm Kenyatta.
“Pennsylvania has laws on the books that criminalize or control behaviors through HIV-specific statues and regulations.” Kenyatta said in a statement.“HIV is not a crime but there are outdated laws that make it a crime in Pennsylvania. We cannot have people losing lives and livelihoods because of this.”
The policy committee heard from Cumberland County resident Julie Graham, who described the impact of these laws on her life after she was charged with four crimes, including two felonies, based on allegations by a man she had dated who claimed she didn’t disclose her HIV status. Due to these allegations, she faced personal and professional consequences that forever impacted the trajectory of her life.
“I support and applaud your courage and advocacy to testify here today,” Rep. Isaacson expressed to Graham. “Being HIV positive is not a crime and we must do better in supporting those in Pennsylvania who are living with HIV.”
House Democratic Policy Committee Chairman Rep. Ryan Bizzarro, D-Erie, was also in attendance adding, “HIV decriminalization is important to the entire Democratic Caucus and I am grateful to the testifiers who came today to speak on this important topic.”
Other testifiers during the hearing include Adrian Shanker, executive director, Bradbury-Sullivan LGBT Community Center, Steven Bryson, SERO Legal Fellow, AIDS Law Project of Pennsylvania, and Michelle Troxell, Pennsylvania Co-Chair, Positive Women’s Network USA. They each shared data that show the impact of these laws on the lives of Pennsylvanians and support changes to the laws.
Michelle Troxell, representing the Positive Women’s Network and a nurse, told the committee she has lived with HIV for 32 years. Her testimony noted that “while I have seen many advances in the way we medically treat people living with HIV, I have barely seen any advances in the way we treat people living with HIV.” See meant the laws that govern how HIV is handled within the legal system.
“HIV criminalization fuels stigma. Stigma, fear, criminalization, and discrimination based on my HIV status impacts many decisions in my life, such as starting a new job, changing employers, getting health insurance, trying to get life insurance, starting a relationship, or ending a relationship.” She pointed out that “HIV criminalization is the criminalization of behaviors that would not be a criminal act for anyone not living with HIV – HIV criminalization laws reduce people, like me, to our viral status. It is dehumanizing and disempowering.”
Also testifying was Steven R. Bryson, a Sero Project Fellow and staff attorney with the AIDS Law Project of PA. He explained what is confusing to many people about the state’s HIV laws.
“Pennsylvania does not have HIV-specific criminal laws mandating disclosure of one’s HIV positive status prior to engaging in sexual contact. Nor does it specifically outlaw the perceived, potential or actual HIV exposure or transmission,” Bryson’s submitted testimony noted. Instead, his testimony clarifies, “Pennsylvania uses generally applicable criminal laws to prosecute people with HIV even when the act in question has little or no risk of transmitting HIV.”
The hearing was closed with comments from Rep. Kenyatta who said: “Here in Pennsylvania, we can and should do better than this. So many other states have updated their laws and we must work to get these laws off our books.”
The statewide Take Control of HIV campaign is a collaboration of five organizations: AIDSNET (Mideast), Family Health Council of Central (South Central), North Central District AIDS Coalition (North Central), Northwest Alliance-Clarion University (Northwest), and United Way of Wyoming Valley (North East). Collectively, the sponsoring entities provide a range of vital services and care for thousands of women and children and adolescents each year, which include HIV-AIDS support services.
The mural is full of colorful graphics and messaging regarding the importance of open communication about HIV. On display at the capitol for the month of October, the goal of the mural is to empowers individuals to thrive no matter their HIV status. The mural was created by well-known Harrisburg-based artist Stephen Michael Haas, a multi-disciplined artist inspired by the likes of late 90s cartoons and Super Mario’s squirrels.
Lead organizer Family Health Council of Central PA, Inc. works within a 24-county region with hospitals, federally funded community health centers, freestanding clinics, direct service agencies, WIC centers, HIV/AIDS service organizations, another community-based organizations to provide services to thousands who might otherwise go without needed care.
The policy imposed an additional form of ritual humiliation on a reviled category of people without any plausible public-safety justification.
The U.S. Supreme Court today declined to hear Louisiana’s appeal of a decision against its 2006 law requiring that people on the state’s sex offender registry carry IDs or driver’s licenses that say “SEX OFFENDER” in orange capital letters. A year ago, the Louisiana Supreme Court concluded that the requirement amounted to compelled speech and could not be justified by the state’s legitimate interest in protecting public safety. In addition to raising First Amendment issues, Louisiana’s now-moribund law illustrates the longstanding tendency to impose additional punishment on people convicted of sex offenses in the guise of regulation.
The registries themselves, which require sex offenders to regularly report their addresses to local law enforcement agencies so that information can be made publicly available in online databases that also include their names, photographs, and physical descriptions, are primarily punitive, exposing registrants to ostracism, harassment, and violence while impeding their rehabilitation by making it difficult to find employment and housing. There is little evidence that the sort of public notification practiced by every state delivers benefits that outweigh those costs. Louisiana’s experiment in ritual humiliation, which branded registrants with orange letters they had to display in every transaction that required producing a government-issued ID, compounded those costs without offering any plausible benefits.
One problem with sex offender registries is that they cover a wide range of crimes, including many that do not involve violence, force, or physical contact. While people tend to imagine rapists or child molesters when they hear the term sex offender, the reality can be quite different, in ways that are important in assessing the danger that a person might pose to the general public or to people in particular age groups.
In Louisiana, for example, mandatory registration applies not only to crimes like rape and sexual assault but also to nonviolent offenses, such as voyeurism, possession of child pornography, consensual sex between adults who are closely related, sex between high school teachers and students (even when the student has reached the age of consent), and employment of a minor in “any practice, exhibition, or place, dangerous or injurious to the life, limbs, health, or morals of the minor.” Robert Suttle, who posted the picture of his driver’s license shown above, was forced to register because he was convicted of intentionally exposing someone to HIV, which resulted in a six-month prison sentence. After a bad breakup, he says, his former partner told the police he had not been informed of Suttle’s HIV status.
The second line of each record in the state’s registry shows the offender’s “tier,” which corresponds to various crimes classified by severity, ranging from Tier 1 (least serious, requiring registration for 15 years) to Tier 3 (most serious, requiring lifetime registration). Further down in the record, you can see the statute under which the registrant was convicted (e.g., “carnal knowledge of a juvenile”), which still omits potentially important details.
The driver’s license warning required by Louisiana’s law did not provide even that much information, meaning that anyone who saw it was invited to assume the worst. Tazin Hill, the man who challenged the law, completed his prison sentence in 2013. He was convicted of having sex with a 14-year-old when he was 32, which placed him in Tier 1. But anyone who saw his license had no way of knowing the nature or severity of his offense. Rebelling at this government-imposed badge of shame, Hill excised the “SEX OFFENDER” label from his license and covered the gap with clear tape, which resulted in the criminal charges that gave rise to this case.
Another problem with sex offender registries is the mistaken assumption that people who fall into this broad category are more likely to commit additional crimes than, say, robbers, burglars, or arsonists. When it upheld mandatory “treatment” of sex offenders in prison, for example, the Supreme Court relied on a highly dubious recidivism estimate that was repudiated by its original source but has nevertheless been cited repeatedly by lower courts. The “SEX OFFENDER” stamp on Louisiana driver’s licenses, even more than the registry, promoted such erroneous fears by implying that the bearer posed an ongoing threat, no matter the details of his crime, how long ago it occurred, or how he had behaved since he completed his sentence.
The empirically unjustified belief that sex offenders are highly prone to recidivism is especially inaccurate and damaging when applied to people convicted as minors, who are included in Louisiana’s registry and therefore had to carry “SEX OFFENDER” IDs or driver’s licenses. Judy Mantin, who this year testified before a state legislative committee that was considering revisions to Louisiana’s law in light of the state Supreme Court’s ruling, said her son “made a mistake” when he was 14 but today is “a very productive citizen.” She argued that “our children deserve a second chance in life.”
Legislators ostensibly have made the same judgment regarding adults convicted of sex offenses, who have notionally paid their debt to society once they complete their criminal sentences. Yet legislators imply otherwise by imposing additional burdens on those people for decades after their official punishment. In this case, any interaction involving a driver’s license—e.g., with cashiers, hotel clerks, bank tellers, employers, landlords, election officials, or airport security screeners—became a new invitation to close-range fear and loathing.
What was the justification for this requirement, which added to the burdens imposed by registration, public notification, and residence restrictions? The state argued that the “SEX OFFENDER” label facilitated law enforcement by alerting police officers to a person’s status. But police already could readily check that by consulting the state’s database. And as the Louisiana Supreme Court noted, the state could have eliminated even that slight inconvenience with a more discreet label: “A symbol, code, or a letter designation would inform law enforcement that they are dealing with a sex offender and thereby reduce the unnecessary disclosure to others during everyday tasks.”
Such a solution would not be adequate, the state argued in its petition to the U.S. Supreme Court, because “the Louisiana Legislature concluded that the public, and not merely law enforcement, needs to know of a sex offender’s status under limited circumstances.” Such as?
“A property manager needs to know a sex offender’s status when leasing an apartment—or the manager might incur liability if a tenant is raped on the premises,” the petition said. “A church or Red Cross facility may need to know a person’s status as a sex offender when providing shelter from a storm. People trick or-treating on Halloween may need a quick way to verify that their children are safe from predators.”
During a lower-court hearing, one of the state’s lawyers offered another example:
If I’m deciding who I want to be my babysitter and I know that I don’t want a sex offender to babysit my children, I say, “OK. I’d like to see your ID before I allow you to babysit my children.” And, “Oh, it says ‘sex offender.’ I’m not going to hire you.”
The Halloween scenario suggests the state’s desperation, not only because this particular hazard is an urban legend but also because it is difficult to imagine a situation in which parents would demand to see the driver’s licenses of neighbors handing out candy to trick-or-treaters. Even when the concerns are more reasonable, the public registry, for better or worse, already allowed anyone to look up an individual and see if he was listed; that was supposedly the whole purpose of creating a publicly accessible database in the first place.
“Louisiana’s branded-identification regime was an outlier in singling registrants out for public opprobrium,” Hill’s lawyers noted in their brief urging the Supreme Court not to consider the state’s appeal. “Just two other States require identification cards to display phrases like ‘SEX OFFENDER,’ while only six States have laws that require identification cards to include other types of sexual offense disclosure—typically a symbol or statute number recognizable only to law enforcement.”
Even as an outlier, Louisiana’s law suggests how ready politicians are to support practically any burden on sex offenders, whether or not it makes sense as a tool to promote public safety. Policies like these serve no useful purpose, but they do make life harder for a reviled category of people whose punishment never ends.
[Feature] It Takes More Than A Village to End HIV Criminalisation
The proverb says, “It takes a village to raise a child”. But what if a mother in the village is living with HIV, and some of the villagers stigmatise her? What if that stigma creates a situation where the mother living with HIV is unjustly criminalised because of her HIV status? Then it takes more than a village to get justice for that woman. It takes a global movement to end HIV criminalisation to sensitise and train lawyers and expert witnesses. It takes national communities of women living with HIV to support that woman following her release, and to educate the community in which she lives about HIV.
Introduction
In 2016, a Malawi court convicted a woman living with HIV of “negligently and recklessly doing an act likely to spread the infection of any disease which is dangerous to life” under section 192 of the Malawi Penal Code. She had attended a village meeting with her baby which she breastfed as usual before passing the child to her grandmother. Another woman then asked her to hold her baby. It was alleged that this child began breastfeeding briefly before the woman realised what was happening. The child’s mother then reported the incident to the police. The woman was arrested and without legal advice or representation, pleaded guilty, was convicted, and sentenced to nine months’ imprisonment with hard labour.
In addition, the accused woman was taking antiretroviral therapy. The chances of HIV transmission through even long-term breastfeeding are very low (which is why WHO guidelines recommend it when access to infant formula and clean water are limited) and the chances of transmission during the brief period the baby allegedly fed were infinitesimally small. In fact, the accused woman’s own child, who was routinely breastfed, has not acquired HIV, calling into question any suggestion that she intended to cause harm to the other woman’s child. Perversely, for a system that unjustly condemned her for risking harm to the other woman’s child, her own baby was imprisoned with her, without any arrangements for appropriate feeding and care, negating any notion that the legal system’s purpose was to protect children.
Following media reports of her initial conviction, numerous individuals and organisations – including HJN and our HIV JUSTICE WORLDWIDE partners, ARASA and SALC – became involved in the case, ultimately changing the outcome for the woman and her family, and laying the groundwork for further anti-HIV stigma advocacy and education in the region. Her story demonstrates the vital role that education, training, strong networks, and community play in the pursuit of HIV justice.
Living with HIV-related stigma
When interviewed at her home in 2019, the woman referred to as “EL” talked about her life:[1]
[1] The initials EL are used instead of her full name following a court order of anonymity to protect her privacy. The interview took place in 2019, during the village visit described later in this article.
“As kids, there were the two of us — me and my brother. My parents faced challenges raising us. Finding the basic necessities like soap and food was a tall order, let alone talking about going to school. It was difficult to get learning materials as well as proper clothes to wear at school. I worked hard in class but couldn’t get past Standard 5 at primary school. Eventually I dropped out, and my brother did the same, … My daily life was taken up doing house chores just like any other girl in the village, as well as helping my parents with farming. At 16, I got married.”
EL further described how she was diagnosed HIV-positive in 2015 after a de facto compulsory HIV test at an antenatal visit. She already had two children and was pregnant with her third. She had heard about HIV but did not know much about it. EL said that the healthcare workers provided a lot of assistance, giving her accurate information about HIV, including the importance of adhering to her antiretroviral treatment (ARVs).
EL and two of her children. Photo: Amos Gumulira/UNDP Malawi
EL said that she generally enjoyed life in her village, although at times she was subject to stigma and discrimination:
“When I went to fetch water at the community borehole, people would laugh at me, and whenever I wanted to participate in community work, you would find pockets of community members talking ill about me. Some people used to insult me, calling me names. But I persevered because my relatives, including the Village Headman himself, gave me support and always stood by my side.”
Members of EL’s family also faced discrimination. “Due to lack of information, a lot of people thought HIV was hereditary and because I was diagnosed HIV-positive, this meant that all my family members had HIV, and they were discriminated against,” EL said.
EL wonders if more could have been done to help her fight stigma. In particular, EL gained a lot of knowledge about HIV from the counselling she got when diagnosed, but perhaps she could have been better equipped with information to share with people in her community:
“A lot of people don’t know that if you adhere to ARVs, you reduce the risk of transmitting HIV to others. This information needs to be passed on to many people. There are also other issues to do with ARVs. A lot of people don’t have adequate information on the effects of ARVs and at the end of the day, they start pointing fingers at each other, giving people room to start speculating about issues to do with witchcraft.”
EL’s prosecution had repercussions for her whole village. One woman from the community explained:
“I was there and very close to where EL was sitting. Yes, she was carrying another woman’s child. This other woman had given the child to EL for safe keeping while she went to stand in a queue, but honestly speaking, I didn’t see EL breastfeed the child. I just heard some people who were sitting a distance from where we were sitting, as they started pointing accusing fingers at her.”
She said that things moved so fast that before they could think of anything to stop what she called “the rumour.” It had gotten out of hand and people started saying that EL had intentionally breastfed the child to transmit HIV.
After receiving a summons, EL voluntarily turned herself in at the police station. She was accompanied by the Village Headman (her grandfather) who wanted first-hand information about what crime she was alleged to have committed. That same day, police transferred EL to a larger town, where she was remanded for three days. At the age of 29, this was the first time that EL had ever left her village.
Days later, she appeared in court and the charge sheet was read out. EL recounted that she had not understood what was happening and could not make arguments because she had no legal representation. EL agreed with the summary of events as they were described, so she was found guilty and was imprisoned together with her youngest child.
She described life in prison as “hell”:
“After a week, my brother showed up to give me my ARVs. All this talk about a woman with HIV breastfeeding. I breastfed but I also found it tough to feed my baby while in prison because there was no provision of special food for babies. We were eating nandolo (pigeon peas) almost every day with Msima ya Mgaiwa (maize meal). And there was only one toilet for a cell of more than 50 people.”
After some time, relatives and other members of her community started visiting, giving her money she could use to buy soap and food for her baby. “When we heard from our Village Headman that she had been arrested, we were so devastated”, a woman from EL’s village explained. “We raised funds for some members to go and give her support only to learn that she had been transferred to one town, then another, but some of us did manage on several occasions to visit her and offer our support when she was in prison.”
Then, out of the blue, EL received a message that some people had come looking for her. She went to meet them: a lawyer, Wesley Mwafulirwa, and his paralegal. They explained why they were there and asked if she would like them to appeal on her behalf. She accepted enthusiastically. “I was excited but at the same time I was confused because I could not believe that I could be so lucky to have these people come to help me.”
Fighting the charges
Solicitor Wesley Mwafulirwa had volunteered to attend training to address legal barriers to prison health and human rights presented by the Southern African Litigation Centre (SALC). He travelled from Malawi to South Africa to attend the training which addressed useful regional and international mechanisms, and presented insights about legal practice and strategic litigation to support prison health and human rights, particularly for those facing heightened vulnerability to HIV and TB.
At the training, two lawyers spoke about their pro bono work. Wesley remembers one of them, Allan Maleche (Executive Director of KELIN), saying that each participant should take at least one case when they go back to their country. It was a turning point in Wesley’s career.
He had not been home long when he saw an article in the newspaper about an HIV-positive person convicted for trying to spread HIV. That person was EL.
Wesley, who lives in a small town in northern Malawi, drove for more than ten hours to get to the jail where EL was incarcerated. He explained his determination, saying “I was so fired up! I’d just come from SALC’s training … and I said, ‘I want to take up this case’.”
Wesley interviewed EL and offered to take her case pro bono. Wesley contacted SALC, who offered technical support. Their first step was to get an order for anonymity to protect EL’s identity and gain greater control over media reporting. Next, they faced an ethical question. They wanted to challenge the constitutionality of the law but that would take a long time. Because EL was in prison, they decided to undertake a criminal appeal instead. They applied for EL to be let out of custody on bail pending appeal. This is usually a difficult application to win, but they were successful and EL was released from prison.
In the appeal, the court was asked to consider whether the conviction could be justified, whether the penal provision was constitutional (arguing it was overly broad and vague), and whether the sentence was manifestly unjust. Wesley used his learnings from the SALC training to raise international principles and instruments relating to sentencing, which the court referenced and upheld. Michaela Clayton, then Executive Director of the AIDS and Rights Alliance for southern Africa (ARASA), and now a member of HJN’s Supervisory Board, provided expert testimony. Another expert witness, Dr Ruth Brand, identified through HJN’s global network, gave expert scientific evidence to show the risk of HIV transmission had been “infinitesimally small.”
The case was heard by Honourable Justice Zione Ntaba, who held that the proceedings in the trial court were irregular and “blatantly bias” against EL, compromising her right to a fair trial. Justice Ntaba found the charge sheet had been defective and therefore EL’s plea should not have been recorded as guilty. She noted the law must be sensitive to the accused’s knowledge or belief (or lack of) that HIV would be transmitted. Justice Ntaba decided the conviction could not be justified, acknowledging human rights principles against the overly broad criminalisation of HIV non-disclosure, exposure, or transmission. EL’s sentence was set aside. (The Constitutional challenge was referred to a full-member panel of the Constitutional Court although the case was not pursued.)
Notably, Justice Ntaba was a member of the African Regional Judges Forum to discuss HIV, TB and Human Rights (a process which is owned and planned by the judges and run with support from UNDP and funding from the Global Fund).
Fighting the stigma
Shortly after EL’s arrest, the Coalition of Women and Girls Living with HIV and AIDS in Malawi (COWLHA) and the Malawi branch of the International Community of Women Living with HIV/AIDS (ICW-Malawi) discussed the case at a roundtable meeting. At first, everyone was surprised and even laughed, questioning how she could have breastfed someone else’s child. They had never heard of a criminal case involving infant feeding and did not understand what they were dealing with.
During their discussions, COWLHA and ICW-Malawi agreed that the prosecution of EL was a manifestation of stigma and misinformation about HIV in the community. They learned more about the unjust measures that EL had experienced, like being imprisoned without being given a chance to be heard and not being given the chance to prepare and take her medication and things she needed to care for her child. COWLHA and ICW decided to get involved.
Representatives from COWLHA and ICW meet with members of EL’s village. Photo: COWLHA/ICW
Concerned that EL could face social and community hostility after her release, COWHLA and ICW planned a visit to the village to provide psychosocial support to EL and to work with traditional community leaders to provide community sensitisation on HIV, addressing issues of stigma and discrimination. Their efforts helped change some community members’ ideas about HIV.
The community formed two support groups— one for youth and another for adults (notably both were predominantly female groups). They have conducted numerous activities, including home visits, supporting children to go to school, helping the elderly with house chores, and they have a garden where they grow vegetables and rice. They hoped to access loans to become self-reliant. They also had a list of issues they wanted to learn more about, including preventing mother-to-child transmission, sexual and reproductive health, positive living, stigma and discrimination, and treatment literacy.
Visiting EL at home
In September 2019, a three-member team comprising Edna Tembo (Executive Director of COWLHA), Charity Mkona (ICW Board Chair), and Peter Gwazayani (media consultant), set out for EL’s village.
The team was welcomed by the Group Village Headman, who took them to EL’s house. EL recognised Edna from the work COWLHA and ICW-Malawi had done in the community previously. EL welcomed the team with a big smile.
EL and her husband looked cheerful as they laid a mat on the veranda of their house for the visitors. Her mother later joined the discussion.
EL was interested to learn that HJN wanted to write about her case and the type of interventions that had been helpful, to share the story with advocates for HIV justice around the world.
EL recounted that when she returned to the village, “most members of my community received me with happiness, particularly my relatives. The day I arrived, they were jubilant. They celebrated with songs that we normally sing during special occasions in the village.”
COWLHA ED Edna Tembo and Charity Mkona of ICW chat with EL, her husband and her mother (at far distance). Photo: COWLHA/ICW
EL lives with her husband, five children and her mother in a compound made up of three grass thatched houses. She introduced her children:
“The oldest is 13 and she goes to school, as do the second and third. The fourth, a little girl, is the child I was with in prison. She has not yet started school. And then there is this one, who I am breastfeeding. She is the fifth one. She has been tested for HIV on two occasions and will be going for the last test soon. The other two tests have come back HIV-negative.”
EL’s accuser and her family still lives in the same village which has presented some difficulties. EL said that on several occasions she had tried to greet them when they passed each other, but she had been ignored. “They don’t talk to me but from deep down in my heart, I have no grudges against them,” EL said. “I am just living my normal life,” EL says, although now she says that she would never agree to carry anybody else’s child, for any reason.
Moving beyond criminalisation
With respect to the community-level interventions, lawyer Annabel Raw, who worked at SALC during the time they supported the EL case said:
“As lawyers, we would never have thought to consider such an intervention had ICW-Malawi and COWLHA not shared their insights and been willing to support the client and her community. Their work has been so important to ensuring that meaningful justice was done to combat the actual root cause of the prosecution — stigma and discrimination — and to reconcile EL with her community.”
Engaging with the community also influenced ICW-Malawi and COWLHA’s thinking about HIV criminalisation. COWLHA’s Edna Tembo noted that:
Supporting people who have been prosecuted, particularly women, gives them power, … However, it is very important to stress that psychological support is absolutely vital for those who have been prosecuted. That includes family support, and a supportive community environment enabling acceptance of an individual accused.”
Tembo was also quick to emphasise that there is more work to be done. That work includes awareness raising and ongoing support to the community, especially to identify and train volunteers, empowering them to provide services at community level and to link them to health facilities and district offices for continued support and mentorship.
EL carries her youngest child home. Photo: Amos Gumulira/UNDP Malawi
EL described her dreams for the future:
“My wish now is to see my children progress in school so that they become productive citizens in this community and help it grow. That’s my dream. If they get educated, they will be able to stand on their own and support others. My husband is not employed and it is a challenge to get money for school fees for our children. We would love to get a loan or training to have greater knowledge of economic empowerment because we want to be self-reliant. We would then love to lease some land to grow rice to sell to pay back the loan.
“It’s also my wish to see the lives of all people in the community uplifted. We farm but on a small-scale. If we were to be supported with funds, I’d love to see the community establish big rice farms, working in groups, harvesting for consumption and for sale. In so doing, we would be able to uplift our lives for the better.”
Further Information
Learn more about Wesley’s experiences in EL’s case here and here.
Learn more about the African Regional Judges Forum here.
The full High Court judgement is available here, with a summary included here.
Read more about the successful HIV and AIDS Management Act community advocacy here.
This article is based on information provided by ICW-Malawi and COWLHA following their visits to EL’s village, and an interview with Wesley Mwafulirwa published by UNDP. HJN provided financial and logistical support for the village visits thanks to a grant provided to the HIV Justice Global Consortium from the Robert Carr Fund for civil society networks.
Russia: Over the past five years, Russian courts have acquitted only one defendant under Article 122 of the Criminal Code
Going to prison for the virus: No acquittals for HIV infection in Russia in three years
Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator, please scroll down for original article in Russian.
Human rights activists, the WHO and the UN all oppose this provision in the Russian Criminal Code.
No chance of acquittal
In one of the most controversial articles of the Russian Criminal Code, the chances of an acquittal are 0 per cent. Cases are heard behind closed doors and verdicts are almost never published. The practice has been opposed by respected global organisations, and even the Russian government has proposed amendments. But for now, the case stands still and the defendants are sent to penal colonies. Where they will not receive proper treatment. We are talking about Article 122 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (HIV infection).
According to the Judicial Department, it is virtually impossible to obtain acquittal for crimes related to HIV transmission. Over the past five years, Russian courts have acquitted only one defendant under Article 122 of the Criminal Code. And from 2018 to 2020, the statistics are quite depressing – all the defendants in such cases have only heard guilty verdicts. Even in cases of treason and espionage, courts acquit more often, Supreme Court documents show (in 3 years, courts have released as many as 5 defendants accused of crimes against state security).
Word and deed
In the winter of 2011, Samara resident Evgeny Kovalev (hereafter the names are changed – ed.) ended up in a drug treatment clinic. The young man had been addicted to illegal substances shortly before, but decided to get rid of his addiction and got registered at the clinic. During the process, they started taking various tests for Yevgeniy, including HIV tests. One of them showed that Kovalev’s organism had antibodies to the infection (they are present at any stage of the disease including asymptomatic stage). He had no symptoms of HIV but was diagnosed with HIV.
At that time Kovalev was dating a girl and was periodically having intimate relations with her. As he will later prove in court, the doctors did not tell him about the positive diagnosis. He only found out about it when he and his girlfriend visited the social centre where they were tested. Although the results of the tests were negative, the couple broke up after the unpleasant news and maintained their friendship. A few months later, however, the girl felt ill and went to the health centre, where the doctor gave her a number of referrals. This is how she found out that she was also infected.
The victim went to the police and Kovalev was detained. He was charged with intentional transmission of HIV (part 2 of article 122 of the Criminal Code). During the hearing, Evgeniy put forward the version that his ex-girlfriend could have been infected by another person, as they always used protection during sex. But the court sided with the victim, who claimed that she had never slept with anyone else. No other evidence was cited in the verdict.
In August 2011, the Kuibyshev District Court of Samara sentenced Kovalev to a real sentence (not specified in the text of the sentence) in a penal colony. Despite having a wife and an underage child, as well as a serious illness, the young man was taken into custody right in the courtroom. He was also charged with moral damages.
In September 2017, a resident of Feodosia (Crimea) reported her mobile phone missing to the police. Her acquaintance Oleg Osipov was suspected. He was summoned to the police station. During the interrogation, there was a conflict between him and an operative named Chudak. After a verbal altercation Oleg suddenly grabbed a decanter from the policeman’s desk, smashed it on a safe and started cutting his hands with broken shards (before that Osipov had not been found guilty of any offence: he had no criminal record, was not registered at a drug treatment facility or a psychiatric clinic). The operative tried to take away the glass, but was struck in the thigh during the scuffle.
After a few minutes, Osipov was restrained and taken to his cell. The man cleaned the wound, the cleaner was scrubbing the blood off the floor. They never found evidence that it was Oleg who had stolen the ill-fated smartphone.
But he was charged with other crimes. For assaulting a police officer in the line of duty (part 2 of article 318 of the Criminal Code). And of knowingly putting another person at risk of HIV infection (part 1 of article 122 of the Criminal Code). It turned out that in December 2012, Osipov learned about his disease and the dispensary took a receipt from him saying that he was warned about the need to comply with sanitary and hygiene standards to avoid infecting other people. This fact was considered by the Investigative Committee to be sufficient for the prosecution.
At trial, Oleg pleaded guilty and repented of what he had done. But the court decided that his correction is possible only in isolation from society and sentenced the man to two years and two months in a penal colony.
Osipov’s appointed lawyer, Oksana Pasichenko, told Sobesednik that she does not know the fate of her former client, but he is “most likely already at large”.
Incidentally, sometimes law enforcers themselves are prosecuted for deliberate HIV infection. In 2015, a police officer was detained in Kaliningrad who had infected nine women.
Despite Osipov’s unfortunate experience, often those accused under Article 122 of the Criminal Code who plead guilty still avoid real sentences. This happened, for example, to Alexey Lozhkin, a resident of Udmurtia who infected his girlfriend with HIV back in 2008. He repented in court and received a one-year suspended sentence.
Fear of confession
The first case of HIV in the USSR was registered in 1987. Lawmakers almost immediately criminalised intentional transmission of HIV; article 115.2 was added to the Criminal Code of the USSR, which later became article 122 of the Russian Criminal Code.
Russian law still does not clearly describe the circumstances under which criminal liability for HIV-positive individuals arises.
The law puts HIV-positive people before other citizens, says Mariya Godlevskaya, peer counselor of the E.V.A. association (she herself found out about her infection in 1999).
– That`s why many HIV-positive people are afraid to tell their environment about their status”, Godlevskaya says. – Article 122 of the Criminal Code puts people in a corner, criminalising anyone who has HIV. The sole responsibility for his or her health shifts to the individual. And yet there are cases when HIV-positive people are simply blackmailed by their former partners. Although it is known that a person on antiretrovirals cannot infect another person, the judicial practice simply does not take this into account.
WHO and the UN have long called for the decriminalisation of HIV infection. And in a number of countries the situation, albeit slowly, is beginning to change. For example, this year, the state of Illinois (USA) decriminalised HIV transmission. A similar proposal back in 2017 was put forward by the Russian government, but it was never approved.
“Contagious” Article
Article 122 of the Russian Criminal Code punishes both HIV infection itself and “knowingly putting another person at risk of infection”. It can be punishable by imprisonment for up to one year. If the defendant knew he or she had the disease, he or she could be sent to prison for five years. If the victim is a minor or two or more people, the perpetrator faces up to 8 years in prison.
In the statistics of the Supreme Court, cases under Art. 122 are combined with cases under Art. 121 (infection with a sexually transmitted disease), so it is impossible to draw an exact conclusion about what kind of punishment the courts are choosing. It is known that in 2020, the number of actual and suspended sentences were about the same – 28 people went to prison and 29 remained free. Ten received restriction of liberty (unable to travel abroad) and one received compulsory labour.
Human rights activists believe that such measures do not work, although they are used in many countries around the world. The list of such measures does not include those countries which are considered to be developed.
Myths
Society is still full of myths about HIV and its terminal stage, AIDS. One of the main ones is the supposedly high mortality rate of the disease.
In reality, HIV-positive people live as long as the average person. As long as they take antiretroviral medication. In this case the person is not contagious. However, the Russian code makes no distinction between those who take medication and those who refuse treatment.
В тюрьму за вирус: В России за три года нет ни одного оправдательного приговора по статье о заражении ВИЧ
Против этой нормы в УК РФ выступают и правозащитники, и ВОЗ, и ООН.
Без шанса на оправдание
0% – таковы шансы, что обвиняемого оправдают по одной из самых спорных статей Уголовного кодекса России. Дела по ней рассматриваются в закрытом режиме, тексты приговоров практически никогда не публикуются. Против этой практики выступают авторитетные всемирные организации, свои поправки предлагало даже российское правительство. Но пока дело стоит на месте, а подсудимых отправляют в колонии. Где они не смогут получить надлежащего лечения. Речь идет о ст. 122 УК РФ (заражение ВИЧ-инфекцией).
Согласно данным судебного департамента, за преступления, связанные с передачей ВИЧ-инфекции, практически невозможно добиться оправдательного приговора. За последние 5 лет российские суды освободили всего одного обвиняемого по ст. 122 УК РФ. А с 2018-го по 2020-ый статистика совсем удручающая – все фигуранты подобных дел слышали лишь обвинительные вердикты. Даже по делам о госизмене и шпионаже суды оправдывают чаще, следует из документов Верховного суда (за 3 года суды освободили целых 5 обвиняемых в преступлениях против безопасности государства).
Слова и дело
Зимой 2011-го житель Самары Евгений Ковалев (здесь и далее имена изменены – ред.) оказался в наркологическом диспансере. Молодой человек незадолго до этого пристрастился к запрещенным веществам, но решил избавиться от пагубной зависимости и встал на динамический учет. В процессе у Евгения стали брать различные анализы, в том числе и на ВИЧ. Один из них показал: в организме Ковалева есть антитела к инфекции (они присутствуют на любой стадии заболевания, в т.ч. и на бессимптомной). Никаких симптомов ВИЧ у пациента не было, но по результатам анализа ему поставили диагноз – ВИЧ (Z-21).
В то время Ковалев встречался с девушкой и периодически вступал с ней в интимные отношения. Как впоследствии будет доказывать молодой человек суду, врачи не рассказали ему о положительном диагнозе. Он узнал об этом только во время совместного с подругой визита в социальный центр, где они сдали анализы. И хотя результаты анализа девушки были отрицательными, после неприятного известия пара рассталась, сохранив дружеские отношения. Впрочем, через несколько месяцев девушке стало плохо, она пришла в поликлинику, где врач ей выписал ряд направлений. Так она узнала, что тоже заражена.
Потерпевшая обратилась в полицию и Ковалева задержали. Ему предъявили обвинение в умышленном заражении ВИЧ-инфекцией (ч.2 ст.122 УК). В ходе слушаний Евгений выдвинул версию, что его бывшая девушка могла быть заражена другим человеком, поскольку они всегда предохранялись во время секса. Но суд встал на сторону потерпевшей, которая утверждала, что больше ни с кем не спала. Других доказательств в приговоре не приводится.
В августе 2011-года Куйбышевский районный суд Самары приговорил Ковалева к реальному сроку (в тексте приговора он не указан) в колонии. Несмотря на наличие жены и несовершеннолетнего ребенка, а также тяжелого заболевания, молодого человека взяли под стражу прямо в зале суда. Кроме того, с него взыскали моральный ущерб.
Срок за графин
В сентябре 2017-го жительница Феодосии (Крым) сообщила в полицию о пропаже мобильного телефона. Подозрение пало на ее знакомого Олега Осипова. Его вызвали в отдел полиции. В ходе допроса между ним и опером по фамилии Чудак произошел конфликт. После словесной перебранки Олег внезапно схватил со стола полицейского графин, разбил его о сейф и осколками начал резать себе руки (до того Осипов не был замечен ни в каких правонарушениях: судимостей не имел, на учете в нарко- и психдиспансере не состоял). Чудак попытался отнять стекло, но во время потасовки получил удар в бедро.
Через несколько минут Осипова удалось скрутить и отвести в камеру. Чудак зализывал рану, уборщица отмывала кровь с пола. Доказательств того, что именно Олег украл тот злосчастный смартфон, так и на нашли.
Но его обвинили в других преступлениях. В нападении на полицейского при исполнении (ч.2 ст.318 УК). И в заведомом поставлении другого лица в опасность заражения ВИЧ-инфекцией (ч.1 ст.122 УК). Выяснилось, что в декабре 2012-го Осипов узнал о своем заболевании и в диспансере у него взяли расписку о том, что он предупрежден о необходимости соблюдения санитарно-гигиенических норм для избежания заражения других людей. Этого факта СК посчитал достаточным для обвинения.
На суде Олег признал свою вину и раскаялся в содеянном. Но суд решил, что его исправление возможно лишь в условиях изоляции от общества и приговорил мужчину к 2 годам 2 месяцам колонии общего режима.
Адвокат Осипова по назначению Оксана Пасиченко сказала «Собеседнику», что не знает о судьбе своего бывшего подзащитного, но он, “скорее всего, уже на свободе”.
Кстати, иногда за умышленное заражение ВИЧ судят и самих стражей порядка. В 2015-м в Калининграде задержали полицейского, который заразил девятерых женщин.
Несмотря на печальный опыт Осипова, зачастую обвиняемые по 122 ст. УК, которые идут на признание вины, все же избегают реальных сроков. Так случилось, например, с жителем Удмуртии Алексеем Ложкиным, который еще в 2008-м заразил ВИЧ свою девушку. Он раскаялся в суде и получил 1 год условно.
Боязнь признаться
Первый случай заболевания ВИЧ в СССР был зарегистрирован в 1987-м. Законодатели практически сразу криминализировали его умышленную передачу – так в УК РСФСР появилась ст. 115.2, позже превратившаяся в 122 ст. УК РФ.
В российском законодательстве до сих пор нет четкого описания обстоятельств, при которых наступает уголовная ответственность для ВИЧ-положительных.
Законодательство ставит ВИЧ-положительного человека ниже остальных граждан, считает равный консультант ассоциации «Е.В.А» Мария Годлевская (сама она узнала о том, что заражена, в 1999-м).
– Поэтому многие ВИЧ-положительные боятся рассказать окружению о своем статусе, – уверяет Годлевская. – Ст. 122 УК загоняет человека в угол, криминализируя любого, у которого есть ВИЧ-инфекция. Вся ответственность за здоровье ложится исключительно на него. А ведь есть случаи, когда ВИЧ-положительных просто начинают шантажировать их бывшие партнеры. И хотя известно, что находящийся на антиретровирусных препаратах не способен заразить другого, судебная практика данный момент попросту не учитывает.
ВОЗ и ООН давно требуют декриминализации заражения ВИЧ-инфекцией. И в ряде стран ситуация, хотя медленно, но начинает меняться. Так, в этом году штат Иллинойс (США) отменил уголовную ответственность за передачу ВИЧ. Аналогичное предложение еще в 2017-м выдвигало и правительстве России, но оно так и не было одобрено.
«Заразная» статья
Ст. 122 УК РФ карает как за само заражение ВИЧ-инфекцией, так и за «заведомое поставление другого лица в опасность заражения». Может наказываться лишением свободы на срок до одного года. Если обвиняемый знал о наличии у него заболевания, его могут отправить в колонию на 5 лет. Если потерпевшим является несовершеннолетний, либо два и более лица, виновнику грозит до 8 лет лишения свободы.
В статистике ВС дела по 122 ст. объединены с делами по ст. 121 (заражение венерическим заболеванием), поэтому нельзя сделать точный вывод о том, какие наказания избирают суды. Известно, что в 2020-м число реальных и условных сроков было примерно одинаковым – 28 человек отправились в колонию, 29 остались на свободе. 10 получили ограничение свободы (не смогут выезжать за границу), один – обязательные работы.
Правозащитники же считают, что такие меры не работают, хотя применяются во многих странах мира. В том числе и тех, кого принято считать развитыми.
Мифы
В обществе до сих пор есть много мифов вокруг ВИЧ и его терминальной стадии – СПИД. Один из главных – в якобы высокой смертности от этого заболевания.
На деле ВИЧ-положительные люди живут столько же, сколько в среднем обычный человек. При условии приема антиретровирусных препаратов. В этом случае человек не является заразным. Однако российский УК не делает разницы между теми, кто принимает препараты, и теми, кто отказался от лечения.
You can select your preferred language from the 'Select Language' menu at the top of the page.
Continue
We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. By continuing to use our site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. You can change your cookie settings at any time if you want. Find out more in our Privacy & Cookie Policy.