Uzbekistan: Careless and distorted headline highlights why HIV criminalisation law must be reformed

Why HIV is no longer a sentence for medicine, but still a scourge for society

Automatic Deepl translation. For article in Russian, scroll down. 

Attitudes towards people with the immunodeficiency virus in Uzbekistan remain difficult, if not discriminatory. The problem lies not only in public intolerance and the negligence of the media, but also in the imperfection of legislation in this area.

TASHKENT, June 8 – Sputnik. In early June, an article on the problem of the spread of HIV infection among young people was published on the website of the Tashkent police department. It focused on the fact that the threat of infection is considered a criminal offence, and a case from 2019 was cited for clarity.

The aim of the publication is to draw the attention of parents and young people themselves to this topic so that they are responsible for their health and are not frivolous in sexual relations. However, a good cause has turned out to be a scandal. A local publication published an article titled “In Tashkent, a schoolchild infected his girlfriend with HIV”. As a result, the participants in last year’s story suffered twice because of the notorious positive status of one of the partners: first the young man was given a suspended sentence for an act that had no serious consequences, and then journalists with an easy hand “gave” his girlfriend an unconfirmed diagnosis of HIV.

Love against HIV
The trial of the young man took place in 2019, but it has only now become known. The young man was charged with a crime under Part 4 of Article 113 of the Uzbek Criminal Code – “Knowingly putting a person at risk of HIV infection”. The young people (he is 17 years old, she is 16) have known each other since childhood, and started dating as teenagers. The defendant fully confessed and explained that he knew about his diagnosis and since 2009 (from the age of seven) has been registered with the AIDS Centre and has been regularly examined.
The couple did not plan a family relationship, but, as usual, everything happened spontaneously, without using contraception. According to the young man, he warned his girlfriend about possible danger. It wasn’t until the fifth month that she was pregnant. As a result, neither the mother nor the child born later was diagnosed with HIV. The couple, of course, registered their marriage, but the husband got a suspended sentence for doing it.
An already unpleasant story, though with a happy ending, could have ended there, but the careless mentioning and distorted headline in the media, which is called, added oil to the fire. This example revealed a long overdue problem of the imperfection of the judicial system with regard to HIV-positive people, who are almost discriminated against twice.

A new perspective on the disease
According to experts, the law as it stands only contributes to the stigma and harassment of HIV-positive people in society, in particular adolescents. The legislation on HIV/AIDS is morally outdated. When it was drafted, it was indeed a fatal disease and there was no antiretroviral therapy. A few years ago, WHO officially declared HIV to be a chronic and non-fatal disease.

In Uzbekistan, free antiretroviral therapy has been available since 2006. There is scientific evidence that a person with a depressed (undefined) viral load (the amount of the virus in the blood), as a convicted young man, has a risk of transmitting the virus to zero. But practice shows that the law is sometimes not heeded to science.

Azizbek Boltayev, a psychotherapist from Bukhara, was one of the first to react to the publication of the GUVD and then reprint it in an Internet publication with an ignorant headline.

“Special attention should be paid to the age when the guy was registered – 7 years old, i.e. he was very likely to be infected in one of the medical institutions of the country. It turns out that the person was punished for the condition he had because of the lack of supervision of state controlling bodies. After all, if the guy had not been infected as a child, today’s problem simply would not have happened. Who would want to register with the AIDS Center after such news?” – noted the expert.
Today medicine allows HIV-positive people to really live a full life, have families without any risk for their partner and have absolutely healthy children. This is why amendments to the legislation are so necessary.

“According to international practice, having a separate article on HIV only reinforces stigma, so it is recommended to apply common articles on harm to health. In addition, only wilfully malicious infections or attempts to infect should be criminalized. If no infection has occurred, the act will usually be decriminalised,” said lawyer Timur Abdullayev.
Article 113 of the Uzbek Penal Code consists of five parts, with HIV being devoted to part of the Criminal Code. 4 и 5. And in one part, two notions are combined: “infection” and “knowingly put in danger.

“The latter refers to any action that involves any risk above zero. So, protected sexual intercourse with contraception does not exclude liability, because it does not protect 100%. Thus, all that is not equal to zero is in any case an article, and it does not matter whether there is a transmission or not, whether there is intent or not. In addition, the Code does not explain what “known” means and what intention it means – direct, indirect or no intention at all,” explains the lawyer.
Thus, the outcome of the trial depends on the interpretation of the law by the investigation bodies and the court.

“In Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan, notes were added to the article that if the HIV-negative partner was warned and agreed to the risk and there is a receipt, then the liability is cancelled,” Abdullayev continues. – However, the Uzbek Criminal Code does not have such a note, which means that all HIV-positive partners in discordant couples (where only one of them is infected) are de jure criminals”.

A humane approach
Over the past few years, Uzbekistan has achieved impressive results in the fight against HIV infection. In addition, the most comfortable conditions for people with status are being created. For example, within the limits of the decision of the president of Uzbekistan “About measures on the further perfection of system of counteraction to distribution of the disease caused by a virus of immunodeficiency of the person, in the Republic of Uzbekistan” pre-contact prophylaxis by antiretroviral preparations for HIV-negative persons in discordant pairs is already practiced.

However, the judicial and legal system requires immediate reforms, dictated by international recommendations and human rights organizations. In the experts’ view, article 113 of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women. 4 of the Criminal Code contradicts several provisions of the Constitution – articles 18 and 27, as well as article 4 of the Family Code. Lawyers are convinced that amendments to the current legislation will contribute to a humane approach to the HIV response.
In the case of the described pair of infected girls did not occur, HIV activists have achieved the correction of the scandalous false title, but how to deal with its consequences now? One indiscreet word crosses out years of work by specialists in eliminating discrimination against HIV-positive people.

“We still find it shameful to stigmatize people already suffering from a serious chronic disease who face restrictions because of their status. Happening of such a situation among healthy teenagers is unlikely to cause public resonance,” believes Zulfiya Tairova, international expert on public health and HIV/AIDS programs.
Hardened stereotypes and a craving to denounce the culprit, to punish it and to make it public so that others would not be harmed, she said.

Imaginary phobias and real barriers
The prevailing opinion in society is still that HIV is a problem exclusively for risk groups (drug addicts, sex workers, prisoners, etc.). Did the convicted young person, who was infected at the age of 7, belong to any of these categories? Was it his or her fault for the infection? Why does he now have to live with the label of a person with a criminal record?

Another problem is related to the restriction of the rights of young people with HIV: the inability to study at a foreign university, a ban on entering foreign countries for a long period of time for work or study, where a certificate of absence of this diagnosis is required.
Even physicians avoid such patients once they are diagnosed with HIV status, sometimes refusing to provide services or transferring the patient to another doctor.

With regard to youth education, Tairova said it is time to stop covering up real problems and not ignore the physiology of adolescents.

“We need to talk to children in their language and teach them how to protect their health, and stop covering up sexual education with a veil of “comfort” (shame, shame). Teenagers should know how to use a condom and that this is the safest way to protect themselves from infection and unwanted pregnancy,” she said.
In 2019 Moldova hosted the first Regional Forum of Eastern European and Central Asian Judges on HIV. Unfortunately, representatives of Uzbekistan were not there. A second meeting is planned this year. Due to the coronavirus pandemic, the format of the meeting is still unknown. HIV activists hope that this time the republic will not be left out of discussion on a very important topic. The purpose of this forum is to raise awareness of judges and change their attitude towards HIV-positive defendants.

Почему ВИЧ – уже не приговор для медицины, но все еще бич для общества

Отношение к лицам с вирусом иммунодефицита в Узбекистане остается сложным, если не сказать дискриминационным. Проблема кроется не только в нетерпимости общества и неосторожности СМИ, но и в несовершенстве законодательства в этой сфере.

ТАШКЕНТ, 8 июн — Sputnik. В начале июня на сайте ГУВД Ташкента была опубликована статья, посвященная проблеме распространения ВИЧ-инфекции среди молодежи. В ней был сделан упор на то, что угроза заражения считается уголовно наказуемым преступлением, а для наглядности приведено дело 2019 года.

Цель публикации – обратить внимание родителей и самих молодых людей к этой теме, чтобы они ответственно относились к своему здоровью и не были легкомысленны в половых отношениях. Однако благое начинание обернулось скандалом. Одно из местных изданий опубликовало статью с заголовком “В Ташкенте школьник заразил свою девушку ВИЧ-инфекцией”. В результате участники прошлогодней истории дважды пострадали из-за пресловутого положительного статуса одного из партнеров: сначала молодой человек получил условный срок за не имевшее тяжелых последствий деяние, а затем еще и журналисты с легкой руки “поставили” его девушке неподтвержденный диагноз ВИЧ.

Любовь против ВИЧ

Судебное разбирательство в отношении молодого человека проходило в 2019 году, однако известно о нем стало только сейчас. Юноше инкриминировалось преступление по части 4 статьи 113 УК Узбекистана — “Заведомое поставление человека в опасность заражения ВИЧ-инфекцией”. Молодые люди (ему 17 лет, ей – 16) знакомы с детства, еще подростками начали встречаться. Обвиняемый полностью сознался в содеянном и пояснил, что о своем диагнозе знает и с 2009 года (с семилетнего возраста) состоит на учете в Центре по борьбе со СПИДом, а также регулярно проходил обследование.

Семейных отношений пара не планировала, но, как водится, все произошло спонтанно, без использования контрацептивов. По признанию молодого человека, он предупредил свою девушку о возможной опасности. Беременность выявили лишь на пятом месяце. В итоге ни у матери, ни у родившегося позже ребенка не был обнаружен ВИЧ. Пара, конечно, зарегистрировала свой брак, но супруг получил за содеянное условный срок.

И без того неприятная история, хоть и со счастливым финалом, на этом могла бы закончиться, но неосторожное упоминание и искаженный заголовок в СМИ, что называется, подлили масла в огонь. Этот пример выявил давно назревшую проблему несовершенства судебной системы в отношении ВИЧ-инфицированных, которые подвергаются чуть ли не двойной дискриминации.

Новый взгляд на заболевание

По мнению экспертов, закон в нынешнем виде только способствует укреплению в обществе стигмы и притеснениям по отношению к ВИЧ-положительным, в частности, подросткам. Законодательство по ВИЧ/СПИДу морально устарело. Когда оно составлялось, это действительно было смертельным заболеванием, отсутствовала антиретровирусная терапия. Несколько лет назад ВОЗ официально объявила ВИЧ хронической и несмертельной болезнью.

В Узбекистане бесплатная АРВ-терапия доступна с 2006 года. Есть научные данные, что у человека с подавленной (неопределяемой) вирусной нагрузкой (количество вируса в крови), как у осужденного молодого человека, риск передачи вируса равен нулю. Но практика показывает, что закон порой к науке не прислушивается.

Одним из первых на публикацию ГУВД, а затем ее перепечатку в интернет-издании с невежественным заголовком отреагировал Азизбек Болтаев, психотерапевт из Бухары.

“Особое внимание общественности должен привлечь возраст, когда парень встал на учет – 7 лет, т. е. с большой вероятностью его заразили в одном из медучреждений страны. Получается, что человека наказали за состояние, которое возникло у него по причине недосмотра государственных контролирующих органов. Ведь если бы парня не заразили в детстве, сегодняшней проблемы попросту бы не было. Кто после подобных новостей захочет вставать на учет в Центр по борьбе со СПИДом?” — заметил эксперт.

Сегодня медицина позволяет ВИЧ-положительным людям действительно жить полноценной жизнью, заводить семьи без какого-либо риска для своего партнера и иметь абсолютно здоровых детей. Вот почему поправки в законодательстве так необходимы.

“В соответствии с международной практикой, наличие отдельной статьи о ВИЧ лишь усиливает стигму, поэтому рекомендуется применять общие статьи о причинении вреда здоровью. Кроме того, уголовная ответственность должна быть предусмотрена только за случаи предумышленного злонамеренного инфицирования либо попытки инфицировать. Если инфицирования не произошло, деяние, как правило, декриминализируют”, — отметил юрист Тимур Абдуллаев.

Статья 113 УК РУз состоит из пяти частей, ВИЧ посвящены ч. 4 и 5. Причем в одной части объединены два понятия: и “заражение”, и “заведомое поставление в опасность”.

“Последнее обозначает всякое действие, предполагающее любой риск выше нуля. Получается, защищенный половой контакт с использованием контрацептива не исключает ответственность, потому что он не защищает на 100%. Таким образом, все, что не равно нулю, – это в любом случае статья, и не важно, есть факт передачи или нет, есть умысел или нет. Кроме этого, Кодекс не объясняет, что значит “заведомое” и какой умысел оно означает – прямой, косвенный или вообще его отсутствие”, — объясняет юрист.

Таким образом исход судебного разбирательства зависит от трактовки закона органами следствия и судом.

“В России, Беларуси, Казахстане были добавлены примечания к статье, что в случае если ВИЧ-отрицательный партнер был предупрежден и согласился с риском и об этом имеется расписка, то ответственность отменяется, — продолжает Абдуллаев. — Однако в УК Узбекистана нет и такого примечания, а значит, все ВИЧ-положительные партнеры в дискордантных парах (где лишь один из них инфицирован) – де-юре преступники”.

Гуманный подход

За последние несколько лет Узбекистан достиг внушительных результатов в борьбе с ВИЧ-инфекцией. Кроме этого, создаются максимально комфортные условия для людей со статусом. Например, в рамках постановления президента Узбекистана “О мерах по дальнейшему совершенствованию системы противодействия распространению заболевания, вызываемого вирусом иммунодефицита человека, в Республике Узбекистан” уже практикуется доконтактная профилактика антиретровирусными препаратами для ВИЧ-отрицательных лиц в дискордантных парах.

Однако судебно-правовая система требует незамедлительных реформ, продиктованных международными рекомендациями и правозащитными организациями. По мнению экспертов, статья 113 ч. 4 УК РУз противоречит ряду положений Конституции – статье 18 и 27, а также статье 4 Семейного кодекса. Юристы убеждены, что поправки в текущее законодательство поспособствуют гуманному подходу в противодействии ВИЧ.

В случае с описанной парой заражения девушки не произошло, ВИЧ-активисты добились исправления скандального неправдивого заголовка, но как теперь быть с его последствиями? Одним неосторожным словом перечеркивается многолетняя работа специалистов по искоренению дискриминации ВИЧ-положительных.

“До сих пор мы констатируем факты позорного клеймения и без того страдающих тяжелым хроническим заболеванием людей, которые сталкиваются с ограничениями из-за статуса. Случись подобная ситуация среди здоровых подростков, вряд ли это вызвало бы общественный резонанс”, — убеждена Зульфия Таирова, международный эксперт по вопросам общественного здравоохранения и программ по борьбе с ВИЧ/СПИДом. 

По ее словам, в обществе еще сильны закостенелые стереотипы и жажда обличить виновника, наказать, предать огласке, чтобы другим не повадно было.

Мнимые фобии и реальные барьеры

В социуме все еще доминирует мнение о том, что ВИЧ – это проблема исключительно групп риска (наркозависимых, лиц, оказывающих платные секс-услуги, заключенных и т. д.). Относился ли осужденный молодой человек, зараженный в 7-летнем возрасте, к какой-то из этих категорий? Есть ли его вина в заражении? Почему теперь он вынужден жить с ярлыком человека с уголовным прошлым?

Другая проблема связанна с ограничением прав молодых людей с ВИЧ: невозможность учиться в иностранном вузе, запрет на въезд в иностранные государства на длительный срок по работе или учебе, где требуется сертификат об отсутствии этого диагноза.Даже медики сторонятся таких пациентов после выявления у них ВИЧ-статуса, порой отказывая в предоставлении услуг или передавая больного другому врачу.

Что касается воспитания молодежи, то, по словам Таировой, пора перестать прикрывать реальные проблемы и не игнорировать физиологию подростков.

“Нужно говорить с детьми на их языке и учить их способам защиты своего здоровья, прекратить прикрывать сексуальное воспитание завесой “уят” (стыд, позор). Подростки должны знать, как пользоваться презервативом и что это самый надежный способ защиты от инфекций и нежелательной беременности”, — уверена она.

В 2019-м в Молдове впервые прошел Региональный форум судей Восточной Европы и Центральной Азии по ВИЧ. К сожалению, представителей Узбекистана там не было. В этом году планируется второе заседание. В связи с пандемией коронавируса формат его проведения пока неизвестен. ВИЧ-активисты надеются, что на этот раз республика не останется в стороне от обсуждения очень важной темы. Цель этого форума – повысить информированность судей и изменить их отношение к ВИЧ-положительным подсудимым.

Australia: Director of Public Prosecutions uses HIV case to argue in favour of lowering burden of proof for prosecutions

Easing proof for violent crime would bring legal ‘turmoil’, court told

A push to make it easier to obtain convictions in serious violence cases would throw criminal law into “turmoil”, the Court of Appeal has heard.

Director of Public Prosecutions Kerri Judd last year took the unusual step of challenging the precedents that set the threshold to prove the offence of recklessly causing serious injury after a man was acquitted of a near-fatal assault on an English backpacker in Melbourne.

The 28-year-old backpacker was kicked in the head when a fight broke out between two groups of men in Southbank in February 2017. His skull was fractured when his head hit a hard surface, leaving him on life support for three weeks.

The 18-year-old accused of kicking the backpacker was acquitted last year of both intentionally and recklessly causing serious injury, after he argued his actions were in self-defence. Prosecutors also couldn’t prove the probability the teenager knew he was going to cause serious injury by kicking the backpacker.

Now Ms Judd wants to lower the standard so prosecutors would have to prove an accused person was “possibly” aware their actions would cause serious harm, rather than “probably”.

Chris Boyce, QC, acting on behalf of the DPP, said the burden of proof was set at an unreasonably high level.

“We have to prove a state of mind that is verging on intent for an offence which was intended to be of a lesser morality in terms of culpability, yet the definition merges between the two,” Mr Boyce told the Court of Appeal on Monday.

But Dermot Dann, QC, acting for the acquitted teenager, said no other DPP has “complained” about the definition before, nor has Parliament sought to change it.

He said such a change would affect any offence that contains recklessness.

“This root and branch alteration … would result in turmoil in terms of the operation of the criminal law and expansion of criminal liability,” Mr Dann said.

Justice Phillip Priest, one of the judges hearing the appeal, said: “My impression, I must say, [is that] it’s been applied satisfactorily for 25 years.”

The precedent that defines predicting consequence as a probability, rather than a possibility, was set by the High Court in 1985 in a case of a truck driver who drove his vehicle into a building and fled the scene.

Five people died and he was convicted of murder but on appeal the High Court found that “the question is whether the accused knew or foresaw that his actions would probably cause death or grievous bodily harm”.

This position was solidified in a 1997 Victorian case against a man accused of attempted murder and recklessly causing injury after a gun went off and injured someone nearby.

The DPP asked the Court of Appeal to instead look to another High Court case, that of a NSW man who knew he had HIV and infected a sexual partner.

In that case, it was sufficient to establish an accused foresaw the possibility that sex would result in contraction of a grievous bodily disease.

A decision in the case, heard by Court of Appeal President Chris Maxwell and justices Stephen McLeish, Stephen Kaye, Karin Emerton and Justice Priest, will be made at a later date.

Canada: British Columbia’s appeal court orders new trial for man accused of reneging on promise to wear condom

Sex with condom is legally different from sex without, B.C. court rules in consent-case appeal

New sexual assault trial ordered for man accused of reneging on promise to wear protection

B.C.’s appeal court has ordered a new trial for a man acquitted of sexual assault after he allegedly reneged on a promise to wear a condom during sex.

In a case that explores the boundaries and definitions of sexual activity and consent, the three appeal court judges all reached the same conclusion — while apparently disagreeing with each other on exactly why.

Two of the judges agreed that sex without a condom is a fundamentally different activity — legally — from sex with a condom. 

And one of those judges then switched sides to join the dissenting judge in finding there was evidence the accused had defrauded the alleged victim into having sex with him.

Either way, X faces another trial.

No ‘evidence of dishonesty’

The original B.C. provincial court trial in Surrey in 2018 ended in acquittal without X’s testimony. A provincial court judge found there was no evidence to support either the woman’s contention that she hadn’t consented to sexual activity or that her consent had essentially been obtained through fraud.

“I am unable to find any evidence of dishonesty on the part of the accused that could result in a conviction,” the trial judge wrote.

In the appeal, however, Justice Harvey Groberman concluded: “As there was evidence indicating that the accused engaged in sexual intercourse without a condom, knowing that the complainant required him to wear one, the judge erred in granting the no-evidence motion. In the result, I would set aside the acquittal and remit the matter to the provincial court for a new trial.”

In the opening to his majority reasons for judgment, Groberman wrote: “The question on this appeal is a simple one: where a person consents to engage in sexual intercourse on condition that their sexual partner wear a condom, can that partner ignore the condition without being subject to criminal liability?”

Insisted on use of condoms

The alleged offence occurred in March 2017, a few days after the couple first met in person. They had spoken online prior to that meeting and, face-to-face, they discussed sexual practices.

The woman said she told X she insisted on the use of condoms.

“The accused agreed that such a practice was safest for all concerned,” the appeal judgment says.

A few days later, the woman went to X’s house just after midnight, where they went up to his bedroom and undressed.

“She asked if he had a condom, and added that if he did not, she did,” the judgment says. 

Awoke in the night

“He replied that he did, and reached onto a side table to get one, which he put on. The two then engaged in vaginal intercourse.”

According to the ruling, the woman awoke in the night to find X sexually aroused. She claimed she pushed him away and he turned briefly to the side table.

“Although the complainant believed that he was getting a condom, he was not doing so,” Groberman wrote. “The two then engaged in sexual intercourse.”

The woman said X told her he was “too excited to wear a condom.”

She took the matter to the police.

Related Nova Scotia case

Complicating matters in the appeal was a Supreme Court of Canada decision in which the country’s highest court considered questions of sexual activity and consent in a Nova Scotia case involving a man who poked a pin in a condom before having sex with a woman who then became pregnant.

In that ruling, the judges upheld the man’s sexual assault conviction, finding that while the victim consented to have sex, her consent was nullified by the accused’s deception.

“The accused’s condom sabotage constituted fraud … the result that no consent was obtained,” Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin and Justice Thomas Cromwell wrote on behalf of the court.

“A person consents to how she will be touched, and she is entitled to decide what sexual activity she agrees to engage in for whatever reason she wishes.”

But in X’s case, the implications of their ruling were interpreted differently by each of the B.C. appeal court judges.

What is ‘sexual activity’?

The question at the heart of the case concerns the definition of “sexual activity” and whether intercourse with a condom is a different type of activity from intercourse without.

Groberman and Justice Mary Saunders agreed that it was — and that as such, the woman had not consented to the sexual activity Kirkpatrick engaged in without protection.

“This is a case about sexual activity that the complainant consented to,” Groberman wrote.

“On her evidence, she did not consent to the accused penetrating her with his unsheathed penis.”

But Justice Elizabeth Bennett disagreed, saying the woman had consented to sexual activity.

Sided with Groberman

She said she didn’t think the Supreme Court of Canada judges meant to distinguish sex with a condom from sex without in defining “the basic physical act” of intercourse, in part because that could lead to the criminalization of defective condoms.

However, she still thought the lower court judge was wrong — because Bennett said there was enough evidence to conclude that Kirkpatrick had obtained the alleged victim’s consent through fraud to warrant holding a new trial.

Saunders — the judge who agreed with Groberman on the first part of the ruling — sided with Bennett and against Groberman on that part of the opinion.

X’s lawyer said his client is seeking leave to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court of Canada.

US: Ohio Supreme Court upholds the constitutionality of the State’s HIV Disclosure law

Statute Requiring Disclosure of HIV Positive Status to Sexual Partners Is Constitutional

The Supreme Court today unanimously upheld the constitutionality of R.C. 2903.11(B)(1), Ohio’s HIV-disclosure statute, which makes it a crime for a person who has tested positive for HIV to knowingly engage in sexual conduct with another without disclosing that information, concluding that it does not violate either the free speech provision of the First Amendment or the Equal Protection Clauses of the United States or Ohio Constitutions.

In a majority opinion authored by Justice Terrence O’Donnell, the Court concluded that because R.C. 2903.11(B)(1) regulates conduct, not speech, it does not violate the First Amendment, and because it is rationally related to the state’s legitimate interest in preventing the transmission of HIV to sexual partners who may not be aware of the risk, it does not violate equal protection.

Chief Justice Maureen O’Connor, Justice William M. O’Neill, and Eleventh District Court of Appeals Judge Thomas R. Wright, sitting for Justice Patrick F. Fischer, joined the majority opinion.

In a concurring opinion, Justice R. Patrick DeWine wrote that the law regulates speech as well as conduct. The concurrence found, however, that the law constitutionally regulates speech because it is narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling governmental interest and is the least-restrictive way of doing so. Justice DeWine’s concurrence was joined by Justices Sharon L. Kennedy and Judith L. French.

Batista Indicted for Violating R.C. 2903.11(B)(1) In 2001, while Orlando Batista was incarcerated on an unrelated charge, the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction tested him for HIV and informed him that he was positive for the disease. After his release, he began a relationship with a woman identified in court documents as R.S. and engaged in intercourse with her without disclosing his HIV positive status to her prior to engaging in that conduct. Two months later, R.S. learned of Batista’s HIV positive status. When R.S. confronted him about it, he acknowledged he had tested positive for the virus and told her he had been infected since he was a teenager. In a subsequent interview with police, Batista admitted to having intercourse with R.S. without telling her he was HIV positive.

A grand jury indicted Batista for violating R.C. 2903.11(B)(1). He moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing the law violated the First Amendment right to free speech and the Equal Protection Clauses of both the United States and Ohio Constitutions. The trial court denied the motion, and Batista subsequently pleaded no contest to the charge. The trial court found him guilty and sentenced him to eight years in prison.

The First District Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, concluding the statute did not violate the First Amendment or the Equal Protection Clauses of the United States and Ohio Constitutions. Batista appealed to the Supreme Court, which agreed to hear the case.

Statute Regulates Conduct, Not Speech Justice Terrence O’Donnell, writing for the majority, explained that the First Amendment does not prohibit statutes that regulate conduct from imposing incidental burdens on speech.

The Court noted that the Missouri and Illinois supreme courts have held that statutes similar to R.C. 2903.11(B)(1) did not regulate speech and therefore did not violate the First Amendment.

Referencing those decisions, the majority concluded that “[a]lthough R.C. 2903.11(B)(1) requires those who know they are HIV positive to disclose their status if they choose to engage in sexual conduct with another person, the disclosure is incidental to the statute’s regulation of the targeted conduct. Thus, this statute regulates conduct, not speech, and therefore does not violate the First Amendment right to free speech.”

Statute Does Not Violate Right to Equal Protection Justice O’Donnell pointed out that R.C. 2903.11(B)(1)’s treatment of individuals with knowledge of their HIV-positive status who fail to disclose that status to a sexual partner furthers the state’s interest in “curbing HIV transmission to individuals who may not be aware of the risk,” and concluded that the statute does not violate equal protection because “there is some conceivable basis to support the legislative arrangement.”

He further explained that “the existence of other sexually transmitted diseases that may have serious public health and safety consequences does not eliminate the rational relationship between the classification here—individuals with knowledge of their HIV-positive status who fail to disclose that status to sexual partners—and the goal of curbing HIV transmission.”

The majority opinion concluded “that there have been advancements in the treatment of individuals with HIV that may have reduced the transmission and mortality rates associated with the disease. However, we cannot say that there is no plausible policy reason for the classification or that the relationship between the classification and the policy goal renders it arbitrary or irrational.”

Concurrence Finds Speech Regulation Justice DeWine wrote that he agrees with the majority that Batista’s rights were not violated, but reaches that conclusion “by a different path.”

“The statute plainly regulates both conduct and speech: one who tests positive for the human immunodeficiency virus (‘HIV’) must tell his partner that he is HIV positive before engaging in sex. When the government tells someone what he must say, it is regulating speech,” he wrote.

Justice DeWine explained that any law compelling content-based speech must pass the U.S. Supreme Court’s “strict scrutiny” test, which requires that a speech regulation be narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling government interest and use the least restrictive means to achieve it.

The concurrence stated that Ohio has an interest in limiting the spread of HIV and an interest in ensuring informed consent to sexual relations. The opinion noted that Batista essentially argued that because of the advancements of treatment, the health risks for HIV “are not really all that bad.”

“But the question is who gets to evaluate that risk: should the HIV-positive individual get to assess that risk for his sexual partner or should the partner get to make her own decision. Fair to say that most—if not all—people would insist on the right to make that decision for themselves,” the opinion stated.

The concurrence concluded that protecting public health and ensuring informed consent are compelling government interests, and that the law uses the least restrictive limit on speech by only requiring HIV-positive individuals to disclose their status to their sexual partners.

“I cannot fathom—and Batista has not advanced—any less restrictive or more narrowly tailored means that could have been employed by the government to achieve its interests here,” Justice DeWine wrote.

2016-0903. State v. Batista, Slip Opinion No. 2017-Ohio-8304.

 View oral argument video of this case.

Please note: Opinion summaries are prepared by the Office of Public Information for the general public and news media. Opinion summaries are not prepared for every opinion, but only for noteworthy cases. Opinion summaries are not to be considered as official headnotes or syllabi of court opinions. The full text of this and other court opinions are available online.

US: Advocates who fought to modernise HIV criminalisation laws for years are wary about what could happen around coronavirus

Will COVID-19 Make Modernizing HIV Criminal Laws Harder?

As states and municipalities struggle with how to enforce COVID-19 distancing and shutdown measures, many HIV criminal law reform advocates are looking warily at the news and waiting for history to repeat, or at least rhyme. Advocates expect new criminal laws on COVID-19 transmission, just like statutes enacted around HIV transmission, to come sooner or later.

These advocates say getting ahead of such laws is crucial—and that now is the time to remind lawmakers and law enforcement that statutes around infectious diseases must be grounded in public health and science, not inflamed by hysteria; in other words, avoid what happened with HIV laws decades ago.

It’s speculation at this point: In the three months since COVID-19 emerged in the U.S., no new criminal laws around transmission of the virus have been enacted. But prosecutions of transmission of COVID-19, deliberate or not, are probably going to happen, and there will be open questions: Did the victim contract the virus from one person who can be identified?

Belly Mujinga, a 47 year-old Black rail worker in the UK who was spat on by a man while on duty, died of COVID-19, but prosecutors will have a difficult time proving whether he contributed to Mujinga’s death, even if they find him and even if he does have the virus. Here in the U.S., most cases involving spitting usually occur when someone with HIV (and sometimes hepatitis C) is accused of spitting at police officers when arrests are being made—even though saliva is not a route of HIV transmission.

But if more incidents like this surface around COVID-19, lawmakers might be tempted to pass laws subjecting anyone coughing or spitting on another person—or just coughing in public—to misdemeanors, or even felonies. That’s something HIV advocates hope to prevent. They’ve been trying to overturn criminal laws like that for decades.

TheBody asked several HIV criminal law modernization advocates about what the novel coronavirus pandemic could mean for HIV laws, and vice versa. Most were cautiously optimistic that their years of educating lawmakers and law enforcement could make it easier to prevent new, draconian laws around criminal transmission of the COVID-19 virus. Some say that, if done right, the COVID crisis could present an opportunity to renew efforts in educating law enforcement, lawmakers, and the public that HIV criminal statutes are still on the books, still being enforced, and have done nothing to slow the transmission of the virus.

Trepidation in Iowa

A provision of the federal Ryan White Comprehensive AIDS Resources Emergency (CARE) Act in 1990 required states to certify their ability to prosecute any HIV-positive person who knowingly exposed another person, whether they actually transmitted it or not. Some states relied on existing statutes; others, like Iowa, wrote new ones around transmitting HIV. In almost every case, these new HIV laws went far beyond laws on the books.

Iowa revamped some of its HIV laws in 2014, allowing a tiered-sentencing system of felonies and misdemeanors, rather than a flat 25-year prison term. Those convicted under the law no longer have to register as sex offenders. But Iowa activists say there is much more to be done.

Tami Haught, organizing and training coordinator for the Sero Project, fought to modernize Iowa’s laws for years, and she’s wary about what could happen around coronavirus.

“I’m a pessimist,” Haught tells TheBody. “The fear of the unknown makes society reach for criminal laws. We don’t have a strong public health knowledge. People don’t understand disease, generally. If deaths continue to rise (from COVID-19), it worries me that legislators will create new laws to prosecute, spurred on by an uneducated public demanding new laws.”

Haught says new COVID-19 laws could be stopped, but that will require a broad and diverse team of advocates. “In Iowa, it took years for all [HIV] advocates to speak with one message, before going to the legislature. We shared our talking points with the League of Women Voters, not a usual subject, and the League made one of their top four goals the repeal of HIV laws in 2014. They had relationships with politicians that we didn’t have.”

Partisan Divide in Washington State

Lauren Fanning, with the Washington HIV Justice Alliance, is still celebrating a significant revision of that state’s HIV criminal laws, which reduce penalties for HIV exposure from a felony to a misdemeanor, require specific intent to transmit HIV and for transmission to occur, and remove the requirement for sex offender registration. It was accomplished on a party-line vote and signed into law by Gov. Jay Inslee in March.

“No Republican voted for [the reform],” Fanning says. Advocates didn’t get everything they wanted: Republicans demanded an amendment to keep one felony for limited circumstances—if an HIV-positive person transmits HIV to a minor or vulnerable adult, that is still a first-degree felony.

“A lot of Republicans in the legislature want to keep HIV laws and also criminalize other diseases,” Fanning says. “As long as it is not part of their reality, they will make it criminal. They don’t believe these diseases can affect them. They also wanted to quarantine people during the Ebola crisis.”

That’s why Fanning expects Republicans to introduce new COVID-19 transmission criminal laws, and she and other advocates will fight them. “We don’t need a new law. COVID-19 could apply to noxious or poisonous substances under existing law,” she says.

“We will be checking laws next year when the legislature is in session to see if something is slipped in. I told the health department to be prepared to step in front of any laws.”

Don’t Fill the Jails

Catherine Hanssens, founder and executive director of The Center for HIV Law and Policy (CHLP), says COVID presents an opportunity to build on the groundwork laid by HIV criminal law reform advocates, by “pointing out the futility and cruelty of criminal penalties.”

“[COVID] gives state advocates the opportunity to talk to lawmakers about responding to a virus with a police approach, and let them know that if you arrest someone without a mask to prevent transmission and then put them in jail, in close quarters, that is not productive.”

Hanssens and other advocates are calling for limited prisoner release. Correctional facilities, along with nursing homes, meat-packing plants, and anywhere people are confined to tight spaces, have very high rates of transmission of COVID-19.

As for how the COVID-19 pandemic might impact HIV criminal law reform, Hanssens said it might not hurt the movement, but it might put it on pause. “States are focused on dealing with the immediate pandemic. Getting legislators to focus on something that is not COVID-19 might not work now, and practically, it may not be strategically the best choice to push HIV criminal law reform right now.”

But that doesn’t mean continuing education and coalition-building can’t take place, Hanssens says. “This is a chance for all in anti-criminalization to see the necessity of looking outside our silo and make intersectionality a reality.” Out of concern that people with HIV would not be prioritized for scarce resources in emergency care in New York City, last month CHLP worked with the disability rights movement to draft principles for allocating resources. The principles say that older people and those with disfavored statuses should have equal access to other respiratory therapies, testing, medications, critical care beds, and staff time, which current guidance fails to adequately protect.

A Silver Lining in a Red State

Indiana, one of the nation’s highly conservative states, has several HIV criminal laws. If you know you have HIV and are accused of HIV nondisclosure to sexual or needle-sharing partners, or you attempt to donate or sell blood, semen, or plasma—you could face a felony. The state also has HIV-related sentence enhancements to its criminal battery in the form of bodily fluid laws, including fluids that do not transmit HIV.

IUPUI associate professor and HIV modernization activist Carrie Foote, Ph.D., says Indiana is making progress to modernize many of its draconian HIV criminal laws, but much work remains. Unlike most other states, Indiana also criminalizes transmission of viral hepatitis and tuberculosis, which is transmitted in similar ways to COVID-19. Because of that, Foote thinks lawmakers could try to criminalize COVID-19 as well.

At least one Indiana prosecutor has vowed to prosecute anyone who knowingly attempts to infect others with COVID-19 but didn’t say whether a new law was needed.

Foote hopes for the best-case scenario as the COVID-19 epidemic plays out: lawmakers not adding COVID-19 laws, and a new opportunity for advocates to show the problems of antiquated HIV and other disease-related criminal laws.

“For any disease, we need to say that laws should be science-based,” Foote says. “Any criminal laws should be based on intent to harm, which is hard to prove, and it should be hard to prove. It shouldn’t be so easy to take away freedom.”

Australia: Proposed law in Western Australia would forcibly test prisoners for HIV and has no basis in science

HIV experts say McGowan government is ignoring science

Proposed laws to forcibly test prisoners for HIV have no basis in science, perpetuate stigma, and should be referred to a parliamentary committee, according to the West Australian AIDS Council and National Association for People with HIV Australia.

Under laws set to be introduced to the WA Parliament’s Legislative Council on Tuesday, a prisoner who assaults a prison officer will be immediately tested for HIV.

HIV and blood-borne disease experts say the proposed laws overlook critical facts and are not based on science. They highlight that  HIV is not transmitted through saliva, a key myth perpetuated to justify this and similar legislation.

The legislation also fails to acknowledge the very successful treatment options available for people who are concerned they may have been exposed to HIV such as PEP treatment.

The experts say in the unlikely event a prison officer was exposed to HIV, they should take post-exposure prophylaxis, a medicine which can prevent transmission within 72 hours of exposure.

Additionally they say the McGowan government’s media releases on the issue falsely claims prison officers who have been assaulted have to wait three months before they themselves can be tested for HIV. They highlight that modern tests can detect exposure within just six days, rather than the 90 day description put forward by the government.

Corrective Service Minister Fran Logan has publicly stated that prisoner officers currently have to wait three months to get tested.

“Currently prison officers, who have been assaulted by a prisoner, have to wait three months before they themselves are tested to see if they have contracted an infectious disease such as Hepatitis C or HIV.” the Minister said in a media statement in February.

There is also concern that falsely equating HIV with criminality inflames stigma and discourages people from seeking tests for HIV.

The health experts also highlight that the debate in parliament, and reasons given for needing the new legislation make incorrect statements about Hepatitis, ignoring that a vaccine exists for Hepatitis B and there is a cure for Hepatitis C.

WAAC President, Asanka Gunasekera said the Western Australian government was creating legislation that would increase stigma and misinformation.

“HIV thrives on stigma and misinformation. These laws inflame that problem and hinder our prevention efforts. Marginalised communities such as gay and bisexual men, people who inject drugs, and sex workers will be less likely to seek a test for HIV when they see it associated with criminality.

“Part of the case for these laws rests on the discomfort prison officers face when they are spat upon. However, HIV is not transmitted through saliva, destroying one of the key arguments for introducing this legislation.

“The Government has also argued a prison officer may face an anxious three month wait to know if they have contracted HIV. The truth is that modern tests pick up the presence of HIV within six days of exposure. Rapid tests provide highly accurate results within fifteen minutes.” Gunasekera said.

Scott Harlum, the President of the National Association of People with HIV/AIDS (NAPWHA) said the workers the laws were proposed to be protecting were not being told the truth.

“Frontline workers including prison officers need to know they’re being sold a lie and offered nothing but dangerous false reassurance by these proposed laws and any government promoting them.

“There is no mystery in how best to respond to a genuine potential exposure to HIV, such as a needle-stick injury, and that does not include any time wasted or misdirected attention on anybody but the person potentially exposed.” Harlum said.

“In cases where someone faces genuine potential exposure to HIV, such as a needle-stick injury, post-exposure prophylaxis medicine is highly effective at preventing HIV transmission if taken as soon as possible and within 72 hours. Additionally, all front line workers should be protected against hepatitis B through vaccination.

“These laws fail to solve any problem, and only hinder the HIV prevention effort. Likewise, there is no evidence mandatory testing of prisoners will do anything other than further marginalise those living with HIV and other blood borne viruses. Amplifying anxiety and misplaced fear around HIV is simply the wrong thing to do.” Harlum said.

In 2014 the Barnett Liberal government introduced similar laws that relate to police officers. Despite international experts highlighting the laws ignored modern science and would lead to increased stigma the government proceeded with the legislation.

When the laws were introduced then Attorney General Michael Mischin told parliament that it was expected that mandatory testing would only be used on a small number of cases.

However a report released last year by the NAPWHA showed that in just three and half year 387 applications were made to force someone to undertake a test, and only 10 applications were rejected.

Last year Researcher Sally Cameron, one of the authors of the report, told OUTinPerth that the reality is it would be extremely unlikely that a officer could be infected by HIV.

“It’s remarkable that these laws have come in now, when treatments are so good, so many people now have a low undetectable load. The odds of – first of all a policeman coming into contact with someone who has HIV, and then there’s an incident, and that incident could involve the transfer of bodily fluids, and then that that incident could include any risk at all – is already really remote.” Cameron said.

Cameron argued that with the additional option of providing post exposure prophylaxis (PEP) treatment to anyone who has potentially come into contact with HIV, there is almost no possibility of an officer contracting HIV. The last recorded case of a front line worker contracting HIV appears to have occurred in 2002.

It is anticipated that the legislation will be debated in the Legislative Council on Tuesday.

US: Oklahoma passes bill requiring the disclosure of HIV status of the recently deceased

As Epidemic Rages On, Oklahoma Republicans Pass Needlessly Stigmatizing HIV Law

While the number of newly confirmed coronavirus cases in Oklahoma yo-yos between 70 to 100+ each day, the state’s Republican-controlled legislator made it a priority to pass a needlessly stigmatizing law requiring anyone handling human remains to be notified if a recently deceased person is HIV-positive.

Even though the bill is ostensibly meant to reduce possible infections, it’s not exactly clear what made this bill such a priority nearly 40 years after the start of the HIV epidemic. Nevertheless, Republican Oklahoma Governor Kevin Stitt signed House Bill 4041 into law on Thursday and the law will go into effect on November 1, 2020.

 The bill seems all the more redundant, according to Allie Shinn, executive director of the LGBTQ advocacy group Freedom Oklahoma, because, as Shinn explains:
 

“There are already so many guidelines in place for the safety of people who are handling human bodies and human remains. They are adequate safety measures, and they are safety measures that are in place that also treat the body with respect.

What this law would do is not make anybody safer. What it would do is lead to incidents of discrimination and revive tired stereotypes and stigmas that will harm people living with HIV.”

 

Oklahoma has the 31st highest rate of HIV among all U.S. states. It’s also one of 34 U.S. states with laws criminalizing the sexual behavior of HIV positive people to ostensibly prevent deliberate transmission of the virus. However, such laws were drafted during the panic of the 1980s and ’90s HIV epidemic and are predominantly used to harass and target queer men of color.

Spanish Supreme Court sets important HIV criminalisation precedent

The Spanish Supreme Court has set an important precedent for HIV criminalisation cases, making it clear that it is not solely up to the defendant to prove that they disclosed their HIV-positive status, as other factors can inform a court’s judgement about whether or not a complainant knew the accused was HIV-positive. The ruling should also make it more difficult for people to pursue vexatious or ‘revenge’ cases against ex-partners.

As outlined in a (Spanish-language) analysis by Professor Miguel Angel Ramiro Avilés, Legal Clinic Coordinator at the University of Alcalá, this decision is an important step forward in the construction of a rights-based HIV response in Spain, permitting a defence based on the principle of dubio pro reo, and the constitutional guarantee of the presumption of innocence.

However, in his conclusion he notes:

Finally, at no time during the proceedings before the Court was the relationship of causality questioned, and an attempt was made to carry out a phylogenetic analysis; nor was the question of [the defendant’s] viral load raised before the Court. This is a step in a long road ahead.

Spain does not have an HIV-specific criminal law – nor a law requiring HIV disclosure – instead relying on general criminal laws relating to injury to prosecute potential or perceived HIV exposure, or alleged HIV transmission.

However, informed consent (usually obtained by proving prior disclosure of known HIV-positive status by the accused to the complainant) can be a defence, as is the case in most jurisdictions using general criminal laws, and so cases hinge on whether or not a complainant was aware of an accused’s HIV-positive status before sex occurred and consented to the risk of ‘harm’.

The case

The March 2020 Supreme Court decision relates to the case of a woman who began a romantic relationship with the defendant in 2012, living with him for approximately 18 months. She was diagnosed HIV-positive in September 2013. Police were called to their home in June 2014 following an argument. They separated approximately three months later.

Following the separation, the woman complained to the police based on her belief that she had acquired HIV from her ex-partner. The police filed an assault charge using Article 149.1 of the Spanish Penal Code: causing aggravated injury. The charge was based on her assertion that if she had known her partner had been living with HIV, she would not have had condomless sex with him.

After an initial ‘not guilty’ verdict at the Provincial Court of Madrid (due to the complainant’s inconsistent testimony), the case was elevated to the Supreme Court. Like the Provincial Court, the Supreme Court did not consider evidence relating to whether or not the man had actually transmitted HIV to the woman (considering neither viral load nor phylogenetic analysis), accepting the assertion of HIV transmission at face value. Instead, the case hinged on the credibility of the woman’s testimony and associated evidence, as considered through a lens of dubio pro reo, (‘in cases of doubt, then for the accused’; i.e. innocent until proven guilty.)

Evidence

The woman testified that she had specifically asked her ex-partner whether he had HIV and he had denied it, so she did not know he was HIV-positive.

The court, however, was not convinced that she was unaware of his HIV-positive status for a number of reasons. She testified that she had used cocaine and hashish with him, which suggested to the Court that she knew he engaged in ‘high risk’ activities associated with HIV transmission. A former friend testified that ‘the entire neighbourhood knew’ that the accused had HIV, so he could not understand how the woman would not have known. The accused’s sister had also warned the woman to ‘protect herself’ and ‘take measures’: the sister said she was sure that the woman had understood her meaning given the context of their conversation.

Medical evidence showed that during the relationship the defendant had visible lesions on his penis, which worsened during and after sex, which the Court found the woman must have seen and understood to be evidence of a sexually transmitted infection.

Further, the court took a dim view of the fact that she reported her partner only after their separation, making no mention of the issue after her diagnosis or when police attended their home months earlier.

Points of law

The Court considered several points of law, including how to evaluate the available evidence. The judgement outlines that, generally, criminal law is not an appropriate tool where a person understands the risk; has as much control of the risk as the other party; consents to the act causing injury; and is injured as a result. These factors are comparable to a person deciding to have condomless sex with a partner they know has HIV, knowing that doing so can transmit HIV, with HIV transmission resulting.

Consequently, the Court found that instead of needing to focus legal analysis on the ‘presumption of innocence’ in relation to the accused, the appropriate principle to be tested was dubio pro reo, which tests whether ‘a credible doubt arises as to the veracity of the assertion of facts’. This principle means that, if ambiguity is found, the matter should be resolved in favour of the more lenient finding.

Ultimately, the court dismissed the charges of aggravated injury as the court found there was “a reasonable doubt as to the ignorance of the woman about the health status” of her ex-partner. The decision suggests that the woman could have deduced or may have known her partner had HIV.

Acknowledgement: Thank you to Miguel Angel Ramiro Avilés for making his analysis of the court decision so promptly available to HJN.

HIV criminalisation still an issue during COVID-19 pandemic

On 21 February, just prior to the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, we celebrated a week where – for the first time in years – we saw no reported cases of HIV criminalisation anywhere in the world.

Soon after we began to notice fewer reports of HIV criminalisation cases and fewer articles related to our collective advocacy.  We wondered at the time whether this may be due, in part, to our previous advocacy successes, athough we thought it was more likely a reflection of the media and the criminal justice system changing their focus to COVID-19.

Certainly, police have been unbelievably busy dealing with ensuring lockdowns and quarantines are followed – some more zealously than others – and courts, as well as parliaments are either closed or dealing only with the most urgent of cases. This is having a concerning impact upon the processing of HIV criminalisation cases, including appeals, leaving those unjustly accused or convicted in limbo and at greater risk of acquiring COVID-19 whilst on remand or in prison.

Now, after several weeks of seeing no HIV-related criminal cases, this past week we have, unfortunately, documented two further HIV-related arrests – a woman in the Rostov region of Russia is accused of passing on HIV to her husband and faces five years in prison; and a man in Louisiana in the United States was arrested after allegedly spitting on an officer and then charged with “intentional exposure to the AIDS virus” after he informed medical staff of his HIV-positive status.

The US news report notes – without obvious irony – the Kafkaesque nature of the law in Louisiana by concluding:

While saliva alone cannot transmit HIV or AIDS, Louisiana law holds that knowingly infected people who spit at first responders can face up to 11 years in prison and/or pay a $6,000 fine.

 

This week, we also saw a remarkably comprehensive article about HIV criminalisation in Tajikistan, which explored how and why the country’s criminal code potentially considers every HIV-positive citizen to be a criminal, what this means for people living with HIV in the country, and how to avoid prosecution as well as ways to organise.

Finally, some good news relating to HIV criminalisation as well as to COVID-19 criminalisation.

In Spain, the Supreme Court upheld the acquittal of a man accused of criminal HIV transmission noting that evidence pointed to the complainant being aware of his status prior to agreeing to condomless sex, meaning there was consent. 

And in Malta, where it was proposed earlier in the week to add COVID-19 to the list of communicable diseases covered by the law used to criminalise the wilful or negligent spread of HIV and hepatitis, this proposal has since been put on hold, due to very real concerns that this may do more harm than good for public health, as well as create difficulties around proof in court.

The Times of Malta reports:

The law could also strain the already stretched law enforcement resources if they suddenly had to deal with a flood of reports over possible criminal spreading of the virus.

“In essence, this seems like a good idea at first glance but it presents a number of problems,” one government minister privy to the discussions said.

The possibility of such a reform had not even been brought before Cabinet yet, he said, adding he understood it “has been put on the back burner for now”. 

“We have bigger fish to fry, right now.”

 

If only other punitive-minded governments – and overly-zealous law enforcement officers – around the world thought this way about COVID-19 and other communicable diseases right now, including, of course, HIV.

Tajikistan: The Criminal Code potentially considers every HIV-positive citizen to be a criminal

How can we save 14,000 Tajiks from the threat of prison and the country from an epidemic?

The Criminal Code potentially considers every HIV-positive citizen to be a criminal, not a person in need of state support.

Why do criminal measures against Tajiks living with HIV contribute to the rapid growth of the HIV/AIDS epidemic in the country? What is the practice in neighbouring countries? And, most importantly, how citizens can protect their rights, the correspondent of “Asia-Plus” understood.

The approach to the fight against HIV in Tajikistan, when law enforcement agencies, not doctors, take over, can have the opposite effect. This is the view of Tajik and international human rights activists, as well as the UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women.

According to the Ministry of Health, more than 14 thousand people with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) live in the country, almost half of whom do not even know about their HIV-positive status, and their number keeps growing.

On November 9, 2018, the UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDOW) issued recommendations to Tajikistan, noting that there are a number of barriers in access to health care, which lead to the rapid spread of HIV.

Thus, paragraph 40 contains a recommendation to decriminalize HIV – complete abolition of Article 125 of the Criminal Code of Tajikistan. In the same year, in 2018, 33 criminal cases were initiated against 26 HIV-positive people, and in 2019 this number was increased by at least 6 more cases. These data were voiced by the prosecutor of Khujand Habibullo Vohidov at the coordination council of law enforcement agencies, on 2 May last year.

Since the beginning of 2020, human rights activists of the Centre for Human Rights and ReACT have already registered two such cases.

Article 125 is no longer in effect.
According to the Global Network of PLHIV (GNP+) Stigma and Discrimination Program Manager Alexandra Volgina, Article 125 of the Criminal Code of Tajikistan is taken from the Soviet legislation and reflects the reality of those years when there were no drugs for the disease. HIV rapidly progressed into AIDS, which was in fact a death sentence.

The first part of the 125th article of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Tajikistan speaks about infecting another person with venereal disease by a person who knew that he had this disease. This is despite the fact that antiretroviral therapy (ARV – ed.) completely eliminates the risk of transmission of the immunodeficiency virus and makes a person with HIV completely safe in terms of virus transmission.

It is important to note that antiretroviral therapy works only against HIV and does not protect against other sexually transmitted infections. Therefore, it is important not to forget about condom use as well.
“Criminalisation in itself is a stigma that society perpetuates in law or practice against people living with HIV. They are treated as criminals by default,” says Mikhail Golichenko, a lawyer and international human rights analyst for the Canadian Legal Network.

By placing all responsibility for preventing the transmission of immunodeficiency virus to people living with HIV, the article on criminalization of HIV, in fact, gives society false hope, misleads society when people think that “if HIV is criminalized, I will be warned in any case,” said the lawyer.

In Tajikistan, the diagnosis of HIV is perceived as a threat. This is a big problem, which under the current global scientific base is simply pointless.

The principle of ‘Undefined=Untransferable’ (if a person with HIV receives treatment, the virus in his blood is reduced to a minimum and then he cannot transmit HIV to his sexual partner) is a long-proven scientific fact and a turning point in the history of the fight against HIV/AIDS.

Thus, today HIV-positive women, while receiving treatment, give birth to healthy children, people with HIV live as long as without it. Families where partners with different HIV statuses, without transmitting the disease to each other, live happily, and this happens not somewhere far away, but in neighboring countries: Russia, Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan.

Women in a trap
Under article 125 of the Criminal Code, women are mainly recruited in Tajikistan. Human rights expert in the aspect of access to HIV prevention and treatment NGO “Center for Human Rights” Larisa Aleksandrova, says about the stereotype inherent in Tajik society – that HIV infection is mainly caused by sex workers.

In fact, according to the National Programme on Combating HIV Epidemic in 2017-2020, HIV prevalence among sex workers is 3.5%.

Heterosexual sex is the main route of HIV transmission in Tajikistan. In some regions, the proportion of such cases reaches 70%.
Larisa Alexandrova shared real examples of violations of women’s rights from the practice of lawyers of the NGO “Center for Human Rights” Zebo Kasymova and Dilafruz Samadova.

In order to protect personal data, no names are given.

Punishment without a crime
“A 41-year-old resident of Khatlon province was previously convicted under part 2 of article 125 of the Criminal Code and was sentenced to one year in prison in 2018. By court order, she was released early in 9 months due to poor health.

But already in 2019 the woman was repeatedly detained. A criminal case was initiated against her in the same episodes as in 2018. None of the sexual partners in the case were found to be HIV-positive, neither in 2018 nor in 2019. However, the court found the woman guilty again, only under Part 1 of Article 125 of the Criminal Code she was sentenced to 1 year in prison. Under article 71 of the Criminal Code, the court did not impose a suspended sentence, but gave her a probationary period for correction, but under control of her behavior.

Expert opinion: Analysis of this case, according to the lawyer, revealed a low level of professionalism of law enforcement officials, both in terms of knowledge of HIV and in legal proceedings. The reopening of a case on the same episode, on the same facts of a criminal case against a person is a direct violation of the Constitution of Tajikistan and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the expert assures.

– The woman served 9 months for the first time, and under Part 2 of Article 125 of the Criminal Code. Initially, the wrong norm was applied, as Part 2 says about HIV infection. But none of the sexual partners was found to have HIV. Accordingly, there should have been part 1, – sums up Larisa Alexandrova.

A trial without a victim.
“A resident of Khujand, who injected drugs, volunteered for an NGO. A criminal case was initiated on 11 October 2018 under part 1 of article 125 of the Criminal Code. The victims of this case were male. During the trial the man stated that he did not agree with the fact that he was recognized as a victim.

After the initiation of the criminal case on the basis of the commission expert opinion, it was found that the man did not have HIV. At the trial, the lawyer asked questions: “Did the defendant offer to use a condom during sexual intercourse?”, to which the man answered:

“Yes, but I refused. I know that she has this disease, but nevertheless, I love her, I will live with her, I have no complaints or demands to her”.
The legislation of the Republic of Tajikistan refers Article 125 part 1 to the cases of private and public prosecution, which means that these cases are initiated at the request of the victim of the crime, but in case of reconciliation with the accused, the proceedings are not terminated. Despite this, the defendant was sentenced to one year and two months’ deprivation of liberty under article 125, part 1, of the Criminal Code.

Expert opinion: In this case, the person was put in jail despite the fact that she had good medical data. In addition, her sexual partner knew that she had HIV. He did not even submit any application. In that case, the case should have been initiated at least by the prosecutor, not the internal affairs system. And we don’t know who reported this case, either. In this case, the procedure for instituting criminal proceedings and the defendant’s procedural rights were also violated.

The investigator did not even let the attorney or the person under investigation see the indictment. The indictment was presented to the lawyer who defended the woman for the first time at the request of the police. Later the defendant refused to defend him, and she was represented by a lawyer from the NGO “Center for Human Rights”. The lawyer filed a complaint against the investigator with the prosecutor’s office, but the prosecutor’s office found no violations.

The judge did not pay attention to all these violations and passed a sentence, comments the expert Aleksandrova. The case was appealed both to the cassation and supervisory authorities, but the judges considered that there were no violations.

International expert Mikhail Golichenko explained what “knowingly” means from the legal point of view.

Part 1 of Article 125 of the Criminal Code of Tajikistan provides for liability for knowingly putting another person in danger of contracting the human immunodeficiency virus. This article does not provide for such a sign as “infection”. In other words, putting another person in danger of infection is sufficient.

The word “knowingly”, interpreted by lawyer Mikhail Golichenko, means that a person knew in advance about the presence of HIV. Being put in danger, without infection itself, means that the crime is a formal one.

For comparison, the Criminal Code of the Republic of Tajikistan also has actions with the material composition, where the obligatory sign is the public dangerous consequences. For example, murder is a material composition, as for the completed composition it is necessary to have such socially dangerous consequences as the death of a person.

For crimes with formal composition, the only form of guilt can only be direct intent. If a person was aware of public danger of his or her action (inaction) and wanted to commit exactly these actions. If there are signs in the case that, for example, the sexual intercourse without a condom was due to fear of violence by the partner, at the request of the partner. Or for other reasons, which give grounds to conclude that there is no desire to put in danger the infection, it is impossible to prosecute under paragraph 1 of Art. 125 of the Criminal Code. There is no necessary element of the crime – guilt in the form of direct intent.

“No treatment, no punishment”: expert recommendations for Tajikistan
Lawyer Mikhail Golichenko and international human rights expert Aleksandra Volgina are sure that Article 125 is not needed, because intentional HIV transmission is the most likely. In addition, this article is covered by another article of the Criminal Code of Tajikistan – “On causing harm to health”. They are convinced that all parts 1, 2, 3 of Article 125 of the Criminal Code of Tajikistan have long lost their relevance.

In itself, the existence of special responsibility for HIV infection is the stigma attached to people living with HIV as enshrined in the criminal law. And in this sense, Article 125 of the Criminal Code of RT plays a negative role in HIV prevention. In this regard, the best option would be to abolish this norm completely. For rare cases of intentional HIV infection it is possible to apply Article 111 of the Criminal Code of Tajikistan on the liability for intentional harm to health of average gravity.

According to Tatiana Deshko, director of international programs in the Public Health Alliance, in Tajikistan it is necessary to bring medical issues under the control of physicians.

– Let’s look at the results of the “work” of this criminal code article. In Tajikistan, more than one million HIV tests were conducted in 2019, and just over 1,000 new HIV cases were identified – that’s very little. People who have a real risk and HIV infection are simply afraid to be tested. That is not surprising, and it happens everywhere.

“Imagine that you would be isolated for the coronovirus not at home or in a hospital, but in an isolation ward and prison. “Then why would you be tested? Still, medical issues should be dealt with by doctors, not the police – then everything would be in its place and we would become healthier,” says Tatiana Deshko.
Thus, Larisa Aleksandrova said that the telephone hotline of the NGO “Center for Human Rights” also began to be contacted by forensic medical experts on gender reassignment and documents of title for transgender people. Such cooperation began to take shape after trainings for some judges: they begin to refer people living with HIV, who are accused under Article 125 of the Criminal Code, for legal assistance. This suggests that the information and scientifically proven arguments are obvious, as well as the fact that the authorities, receiving more information, are ready to contribute in every way to the reasonable support of human rights.

“The Global Fund confirms its readiness to continue supporting Tajikistan’s efforts in the fight against AIDS in implementing an effective response to HIV based on scientific evidence,” said Alexandrina Iovita, Human Rights Adviser, Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria to Asia Plus.
– The focus of these activities is to prevent new cases, increase ARV coverage and reduce barriers to human rights violations faced by key populations in accessing services. Evidence and recommendations from technical partners such as UNAIDS and UNDP indicate that overly broad criminalization of HIV prevents people from getting tested and starting ARVs and jeopardizes adherence.

We welcome the increasing focus on public health rather than on punitive approaches. It is public health that is based on effective and humane interventions that are essential when comparing resources spent and results obtained.

Where to go for help for people living with HIV?
The Republic has organizations that provide support and advice to people living with HIV in difficult circumstances. These are SPIN-plus and the Network of Women Living with HIV in Tajikistan.

As for legal assistance, in Tajikistan there is a hotline of NGO “Center for Human Rights”, +992933557755.

“In just 4 months (October 2019-January 2020), 60 people (21 men, 36 women and 3 transgender people) contacted the hotline,” said Larisa Alexandrova.
Any person in a difficult situation due to HIV can contact the hotline and receive free legal advice and / or support for representation in courts, state agencies.

Lawyers who have not previously dealt with such cases, recommended international human rights activist Mikhail Golichenko, should consult with experienced lawyers in advance. Special organizations, such as the Center for Human Rights in Tajikistan, can be contacted to explain what to do in different situations.

You can’t try to do something on your own, better involve allies and organize protection. Lawyers must be clear about what evidence they need to gather in order to do so.

UNAIDS states unequivocally that there is no evidence to support the effectiveness of criminal law enforcement for HIV transmission in preventing HIV transmission. Rather, it undermines public health goals and the protection of human rights. UNAIDS commends country initiatives to review such legislation and repeal it.

Как спасти 14 тысяч таджиков от угрозы тюрьмы, а страну – от эпидемии?

УГОЛОВНЫЙ КОДЕКС РТ КАЖДОГО ВИЧ-ПОЗИТИВНОГО ГРАЖДАНИНА ПОТЕНЦИАЛЬНО РАССМАТРИВАЕТ КАК ПРЕСТУПНИКА, А НЕ ЧЕЛОВЕКА, НУЖДАЮЩЕГОСЯ В ПОДДЕРЖКЕ ГОСУДАРСТВА

Почему уголовные меры против таджиков, живущих с ВИЧ, способствуют стремительному росту эпидемии ВИЧ/СПИДа в стране? Какая практика у соседних стран? И, главное, как гражданам защищать свои права, разбирался корреспондент «Азия-Плюс».

Подход в борьбе с ВИЧ в Таджикистане, когда за дело берутся правоохранители, а не врачи, может дать обратный эффект. Так считают таджикские и международные правозащитники, а также комитет ООН по ликвидации дискриминации в отношении женщин.

По информации Минздрава РТ в стране проживает более 14 тыс. людей с вирусом иммунодефицита человека (ВИЧ), почти половина которых, даже не подозревает о своём ВИЧ-положительном статусе, и их число продолжает расти.

9 ноября 2018 года, комитет ООН по ликвидации дискриминации в отношении женщин (CEDOW) опубликовал рекомендации в адрес Таджикистана, отметив наличие ряда барьеров в доступе к здравоохранению, которые приводят к стремительному распространению ВИЧ.

Так, в пункте 40 содержится рекомендация по декриминализации ВИЧ – полной отмене статьи 125 Уголовного кодекса РТ. В том же 2018 году было возбуждено 33 уголовных дела в отношении 26 ВИЧ-позитивных людей, а в 2019 году к этому числу прибавилось еще, как минимум, 6 дел. Эти данные озвучил прокурор Худжанда Хабибулло Вохидов на координационном совете правоохранительных органов, 2 мая прошлого года.

С начала 2020 года правозащитники ОО «Центра по правам человека» и ReACT зарегистрировали уже 2 таких кейса.

125-я статья уже не работает

По словам менеджера программ по стигме и дискриминации Глобальной Сети ЛЖВ (GNP+) Александры Волгиной, 125 статья в Уголовном кодексе Таджикистана взята из советского законодательства и отражает реальность тех лет, когда еще не было лекарств от этого заболевания. ВИЧ быстро прогрессировал в состояние СПИДа, что являлось фактически смертельным приговором.

Первая часть 125-й статьи УК РТ говорит о заражении другого лица венерической болезнью лицом, знавшим о наличии у него этой болезни. Это притом, что антиретровирусная терапия (АРВ, – ред.) полностью устраняет риск передачи вируса иммунодефицита и делает человека с ВИЧ совершенно безопасным в плане передачи вируса.

Важно отметить, что эта АРВ терапия работает только против ВИЧ и не защищает от других инфекций, передающихся половым путем. Поэтому важно не забывать и об использовании презерватива.

«Сама по себе криминализация — клеймо, которое общество закрепляет в законе или в практике против людей, живущих с ВИЧ. Они рассматриваются как преступники, по умолчанию», – говорит Михаил Голиченко, адвокат, международный аналитик по правам человека Канадской правовой сети.

Возлагая всю ответственность за профилактику передачивируса иммунодефицита на людей, живущих с ВИЧ, статья о криминализации ВИЧ, по сути, дает обществу ложную надежду, вводит общество в заблуждение, когда люди думают, что «если ВИЧ криминализовано, то меня в любом случае предупредят», – отмечает адвокат.

В Таджикистане диагноз «ВИЧ» воспринимается как угроза. Это большая проблема, которая при существующей мировой научной базе просто бессмысленна.

Принцип “Неопределяемый=Непередаваемый” (если человек с ВИЧ получает лечение, у него в крови вирус снижается до минимума и тогда он не может передать ВИЧ половому партнеру) – давно доказанный научный факт и переломный момент в истории борьбы с ВИЧ/СПИДом.

Так, сегодня ВИЧ-положительные женщины, принимая лечение, рожают здоровых детей, люди с ВИЧ живут так же долго, как и без него. Семьи, где партнеры с разными ВИЧ статусами, не передавая болезнь друг другу, живут счастливо, и это происходит не где-то далеко, а в соседних странах: России, Кыргызстане, Казахстане и Узбекистане.

Женщины в западне

В Таджикистане по 125-й статье Уголовного кодекса РТ в основном привлекаются женщины. Эксперт по правам человека в аспекте доступа к профилактике и лечению ВИЧ ОО «Центра по правам человека» Лариса Александрова, говорит о стереотипе, присущем таджикскому обществу – о том, что заражают ВИЧ-инфекцией в основном секс-работницы.

На самом деле, по данным Национальной программы по противодействию эпидемии ВИЧ на 2017-2020 гг. распространенность ВИЧ среди секс-работниц – 3,5%.

Гетеросексуальные половые контакты – основной путь передачи ВИЧ в Таджикистане. В ряде регионов доля таких случаев достигает 70%.

Лариса Александрова поделилась реальными примерами нарушения прав женщин из практики адвокатов ОО «Центра по правам человека» Зебо Касымовой и Дилафруз Самадовой.

В целях защиты персональных данных, имена не указываются.

Наказание без преступления

«41-летняя жительница Хатлонской области ранее была судима по ч.2 статьи 125 УК РТ и приговором суда в 2018 году была осуждена на год лишения свободы. Постановлением суда через 9 месяцев освобождена досрочно в связи с плохим состоянием здоровья.

Но уже 2019 году женщина была повторно задержана. В отношении неё было возбуждено уголовное делопо тем же эпизодам, что и в 2018 году. Ни у одного из проходящих по делу половых партнёров не было выявлено ВИЧ, ни в 2018, ни в 2019году. Однако суд повторно признал женщину виновной, только уже по ч.1 статьи 125 УК РТ ей назначали 1 год лишения свободы. Суд на основании статьи 71 УК РТ условно не применил наказание, а дал ей испытательный срок для исправления, но в условиях контроля за её поведением».

Мнение экспертов: Анализ данного кейса, по словам адвоката, выявил низкий уровень профессионализма сотрудников правоохранительных органов, как по знанию особенностей ВИЧ, так и по судопроизводству. Повторное возбуждение делапо одному и тому же эпизоду, по тем же фактам уголовного дела против человека – прямое нарушение Конституции РТ и Международного пакта о гражданских и политических правах, уверяет эксперт.

–  Женщина первый раз отсидела 9 месяцев, причём по части 2 ст.125 УК РТ. Изначально была применена неправильная норма, так как часть 2 говорит о заражении ВИЧ. Но ни у одного из половых партнеров не был обнаружен ВИЧ. Соответственно должна была быть часть 1, — резюмирует Лариса Александрова.

Суд без потерпевшего

«Жительница г. Худжанд, употреблявшая инъекционные наркотики, работала волонтёром в НПО. Уголовное дело было возбуждено 11 октября 2018 года по ч.1. статьи 125 УК РТ. Потерпевшим по этому делу проходил мужчина. В ходе судебного процесса мужчина заявил, что он не согласен с тем, что его признали потерпевшим.

После возбуждения уголовного дела на основании заключения комиссионной экспертизы, было выявлено, что у мужчины отсутствует ВИЧ. На суде были заданы вопросы со стороны адвоката: «Предлагала ли подзащитная использовать презерватив при половом контакте?», на что мужчина ответил:

«Да, но я отказался. Я знаю, что у неё есть это заболевание, но, тем не менее, я люблю её, буду с ней жить, не имею к ней претензии и требований».

Законодательство Республики Таджикистан относит статью 125 часть 1 к делам частно-публичного обвинения, это означает, что эти дела возбуждаются по заявлению лица, пострадавшего от преступления, но в случае примирения его с обвиняемым производство по ним не подлежит прекращению. Несмотря на это, в отношении подсудимой был вынесен приговор – 1 год 2 месяца лишения свободы по ч.1 статьи 125 УК РТ».

Мнение экспертов: В этом случае, человека посадили, несмотря на то, что у неё были хорошие медицинские данные. К тому же о наличии у неё ВИЧ половой партнёр знал. Он даже не подавал никакого заявления. В таком случае дело должно было быть возбуждено, как минимум прокурором, а не системой внутренних дел. И кто сообщил об этом кейсе тоже неизвестно. В данном кейсе был нарушен и порядок возбуждения уголовного, дела и процессуальные права подсудимой женщины.

Следователь даже не дал ознакомиться с обвинительным заключением ни адвокату, ни самой подследственной. Обвинительное заключение было представлено адвокату, которая защищала женщину впервые дни по запросу органов милиции. В впоследствии подсудимаяот его защиты отказалась, и ей был представлен адвокат от ОО «Центр по правам человека». Адвокатом была подана жалоба на следователя в прокуратуру, но прокуратура не нашла никаких нарушений.

Судья не обратил внимания на все эти нарушения и вынес приговор, комментирует эксперт Александрова. Дело было обжаловано и в кассационную, и надзорную инстанции, но и там судьи посчитали, что нарушений нет.

Что значит «заведомо» – с юридической точки зрения объяснил международный эксперт Михаил Голиченко.

Часть 1 ст. 125 УК Таджикистана предусматривает ответственность за заведомоепоставление другого лица в опасность заражения вирусом иммунодефицита человека. В этой статье не предусмотрен такой признак как «заражение». То есть самой постановки в опасность заражения достаточно.

Слово «заведомо», толкует юрист Михаил Голиченко, означает, что человек заранее знал о наличии у него ВИЧ. Поставление в опасность, без наступления самого заражения, означает, что состав преступления формальный.

Для сравнения, в УК РТ также есть действия с материальным составом, где обязательным признаком выступают общественно-опасные последствия. Например, убийство – материальный состав, так как для оконченного состава необходимо наступление такого общественно-опасного последствия, как смерть человека.

Для преступлений с формальным составом единственной формой вины может быть только прямой умысел. Если человек осознавал общественную опасность своего действия (бездействия) и желал совершить именно эти действия. Если в деле есть признаки того, что, например, половой акт без презерватива был по причине страха насилия со стороны партнёра, по просьбе самого партнёра. Либо по другим причинам, которые дают основания для вывода об отсутствии желания поставить в опасность заражения, то привлечь к ответственности по части 1 ст. 125 УК РТ нельзя. Отсутствует необходимый элемент состава преступления – вина в форме прямого умысла.

«Лечить, нельзя наказывать»: рекомендации экспертов для Таджикистана

Адвокат Михаил Голиченко и международный эксперт по правам человека Александра Волгина уверены, что статья 125 не нужна, потому что умышленная передача ВИЧ –редчайшая вероятность. К тому же эта статьяохваченадругой статьей УК Таджикистана – «О причинении вреда здоровью». Они убеждены, все части 1,2,3 ст. 125 УК РТ давно утратили свою актуальность.

Само по себе наличие специальной ответственности за заражение ВИЧ является закрепленной в уголовном законе стигмой по отношению к людям, живущим с ВИЧ. И в этом смысле ст. 125 УК РТ играет негативную роль в вопросах профилактики ВИЧ-инфекции. В этой связи лучшим вариантом была бы отмена данной нормы полностью. Для редких случаев умышленного заражения ВИЧ возможно применении ст. 111 УК РТ об ответственности за умышленное причинение вреда здоровью средней тяжести.

По мнению Татьяны Дешко, директора международных программ в Альянсе общественного здоровья, в Таджикистане необходимо дать медицинские вопросы под контроль медиков.

– Давайте посмотрим на результаты «работы» этой статьи уголовного кодекса. В Таджикистане в 2019 году проведено более миллиона тестов на ВИЧ-инфекцию, а выявлено чуть больше 1 тыс новых случаев ВИЧ – это очень мало. Люди, которые имеют реальный риск и ВИЧ-инфекцию, просто боятся тестироваться. Неудивительно и так происходит везде.

“Представьте, что за короновирус вас бы изолировали не дома или в больнице, а в изоляторе и тюрьме. Пошли бы вы тогда тестироваться? Все-таки медицинскими вопросами должны заниматься врачи, а не полиция, – тогда все станет на свои места и станем здоровее”, – говорит Татьяна Дешко.

Так, Лариса Александрова рассказала, что на телефон горячей линии ОО «Центр по правам человека» начали обращаться также и сотрудники судебно-медицинской экспертизы по поводу изменения пола и правоустанавливающих документов по трансгендерным людям. Такое сотрудничество начало складываться после проведения тренингов для некоторых судей: они начинают перенаправлять людей, живущих с ВИЧ, которые обвиняются по ст.125 УК РТ, за правовой помощью. Это говорит о том, что информирование и научно доказанные аргументы очевидны, а также о том, что представители власти, получая больше информации готовы всячески способствовать разумному сопровождению прав человека. 

«Глобальный фонд подтверждает свою готовность продолжать поддержку деятельности Таджикистана в борьбе со СПИДом в применении эффективных мер ответа на ВИЧ, основанных на научно-доказанных данных, – сказала «Азия-Плюс» Александрина Иовита, советник по правам человека, Глобального фонда для борьбы со СПИДом, туберкулёзом и малярией. 

– Фокус этой деятельности направлен на предотвращение новых случаев, расширение охвата АРВ и снижение барьеров, связанных с нарушением прав человека, с которыми сталкиваются представители ключевых групп в контексте получения доступа к услугам. Фактические данные и рекомендации от технических партнеров, таких, как ЮНЭЙДС и ПРООН, указывают на то, что чрезмерно широкая криминализация ВИЧ не позволяет людям проходить тестирование и начинать АРВ, а также ставит под угрозу приверженность.

Мы приветствуем все больший фокус на общественном здравоохранении, а не на карательных подходах. Именно общественное здравоохранение основано на эффективных и гуманных мерах, представляющих большую значимость при сравнении затраченных ресурсов и полученных результатов».

Куда обратиться за помощью людям, живущим с ВИЧ?

В республике работают организации, которые оказывают поддержку и консультирование людям, живущим с ВИЧ, оказавшимся в сложных жизненных обстоятельствах. Это СПИН-плюс и Сеть женщин, живущих с ВИЧ в Таджикистане.

Что касается правовой помощи, в Таджикистане работает горячая линия ОО «Центра по правам человека», +992933557755

«Только за 4 месяца (октябрь 2019-январь 2020) на горячую линию обратились 60 человек (21 мужчина, 36 женщин и 3 трансгендерных человека)», – говорит Лариса Александрова.

Любой человек, оказавшись в сложной ситуации, в связи с ВИЧ, может обратиться на горячую линию и получить бесплатно правовую консультацию и/или поддержку по представительству в судах, государственных органах.

Адвокаты, которые ранее не занимались подобными делами, рекомендует международный правозащитник Михаил Голиченко, должны заранее проконсультироваться с опытными юристами. Можно обратиться в специальные организации – такие как ОО «Центр по правам человека в Таджикистане», чтобы им могли разъяснить, как быть в разных ситуациях.

Нельзя пытаться что-то делать своими силами, лучше привлечь союзников и организовать защиту. Адвокат должен четко знать, какие доказательства для этого необходимо собрать.

ЮНЭЙДС однозначно заявляет, что нет никаких данных, подтверждающих эффективность применения уголовного законодательства в отношении передачи ВИЧ – для предотвращения передачи ВИЧ. Наоборот, такое применение подрывает цели общественного здравоохранения и защиту прав человека. ЮНЭЙДС высоко оценивает инициативы стран по пересмотру такого законодательства и его отмене.