US: HIV criminalisation laws expose Black Americans to disproportionate arrest and prosecution rates

“Look at who’s in political control”: How HIV disclosure laws are steeped in racial bias

HIV criminalization arose in an atmosphere of fearful ignorance, disproportionately harming Black men. But activists are fighting back.

Today, 32 states have laws that criminalize people living with HIV (PLWH). These laws expose PLWH to the risk of prosecution and incarceration for engaging in consensual sexual activity while not disclosing their status. Of those states, 28 enhance criminal penalties based on an individual’s knowledge of their HIV status. In many of these states, arrests and convictions due to HIV criminalization disproportionately impact Black populations, because HIV disproportionately impacts Black populations.

A new study of 16 states by the Williams Institute shows Black Americans are more likely than any other race to be arrested and convicted for HIV-related allegations, and were arrested for HIV-related crimes at higher rates than their overall share of the population. In 64% of the states analyzed, Black Americans faced higher rates of arrest than their share of PLWH in the state. In 75% of the states, Black Americans were convicted at higher rates than their share of PLWH in the state.

Legislation criminalizing the transmission of HIV started in the 1980s, in response to events largely fueled by fear that the AIDS epidemic — which at the time was perceived as gay men’s disease, and was originally called Gay Related Immunodeficiency Syndrome (GRID) — would spread to heterosexuals. In 1987, Ronald Reagan’s Presidential Commission on the HIV Epidemic recommended that states adopt HIV-specific laws in response to rising infection rates among gay men, based on the belief that existing assault laws were too lenient to serve as a deterrent.

In 1990, the Ryan White Comprehensive AIDS Resource Emergency (CARE) Act was enacted, providing funding to states on the condition that their criminal laws addressed intentional HIV exposure and transmission.

Subsequently, flurries of punitive legislation arose amid highly publicized, sensationalized cases involving young Black men, such as that of Nushawn Williams in the late 1990s. Accused of having sex with younger women while HIV-positive, Williams pleaded guilty to reckless endangerment and statutory rape and was sentenced to 12 years in prison. He remains imprisoned after serving his sentence because the New York attorney general initiated involuntary civil commitment proceedings against him just days before his release.

“Available research confirms what we knew back then — criminal laws do not reduce HIV transmission or the behavior that causes it,” says Catherine Hanssens, the founding executive director of The Center for HIV Law and Policy.

Robert Suttle, an HIV criminalization policy expert, tells LGBTQ Nation that these laws became more about control than prevention. “HIV criminalization became a proxy to control certain populations — queer people, sex workers — especially to stop people diagnosed with HIV from having sex,” says Sutter. “It’s never worked.”

Indeed, recent studies have found that HIV criminalization laws have “no detectable prevention effect.”

Not only do HIV criminalization laws, conceived at a time when an HIV diagnosis was essentially considered a death sentence, fail as preventative measures, but they also eliminate burdens of proof and intent to do harm, which are required under criminal law.

Most of these laws only require simple exposure with the failure to disclose HIV status. Most state laws don’t require evidence of transmission or intent to harm. Several target interactions in which spit and other bodily fluids come into contact with law enforcement, correctional employees, and first responders, criminalizing behavior that has no chance of transmitting HIV.

Again, these laws — which have stood for decades — reflect a time when little was known about how HIV was spread, and a diagnosis was considered fatal.

Black bodies on trial: The case of “Tiger Mandingo”

The case of Michael Johnson, also known by his screen name “Tiger Mandingo,” illustrates many of the problems with HIV-criminalization laws and how they intersect with the historic policing of Black Americans.

Johnson, a Black gay wrestler at Linwood University in St. Charles, Missouri, was arrested in 2013 for not disclosing his HIV-positive status to six former male sex partners, four of whom were white. At the time, Missouri’s law required PLWH to inform their partners of their status, regardless of safe-sex practices. The law did not require intent to transmit or actual transmission of HIV, but only that a person was aware of their status and unable to prove that they informed their partners before engaging in sex.

Johnson faced a stacked deck before his trial even started. Of the 51 potential jurors, only one was non-white. Half said they believed being gay was a choice, and two-thirds believed it was a sin. All were straight, HIV-negative, and believed that PLWH who do not disclose to their partners deserved to be prosecuted. The final jury consisted of four white men, seven white women, and one retired Black nurse. Most of the jurors appeared to be in their 50s or 60s.

Several discrepancies arose during Johnson’s trial. Johnson maintained that he disclosed his status and that all of his partners engaged in consensual sex without condoms. Each of his partners testified that they’d asked if he was “clean” or STD-free, and that he’d assured them that he was. This contradicted what they initially told police. But the jury never heard of these discrepancies, either because his defense attorney failed to raise them or because she was overruled when she did.

Telling people that they are a potential criminal based only on a diagnosed health condition is harmful, particularly to people who have been told for centuries that they are not worthy of equal treatment under the law based on race, sexual orientation, or gender identity.”

Catherine Hanssens, executive director of The Center for HIV Law and Policy.

One partner testified that Johnson had actually infected him, but told the police he’d told Johnson he was HIV-positive when he met him. No genetic evidence linked Johnson’s strain of HIV to the virus in the other men, suggesting that they may have contracted it from someone else.

The prosecution employed stereotypical tropes. Images of Johnson’s penis — from a sex video made with one of his partners — were shown to the nearly all-white, all heterosexual, HIV-negative jury, literally criminalizing his “contagious” Black body, and reducing him to his sex organ, described in graphic, lurid detail in police reports and on the witness stand as “very large” and “too tight” for condoms.

In 2015, the jury sentenced him to 30 years for transmitting HIV without disclosure to six former sexual partners, and 30.5 years for exposing four others without disclosure, for a total of 60.5 years — a longer sentence than many convicted of involuntary manslaughter. The judge ultimately reduced the sentence to 30 years.

However, Johnson served only a fraction of his sentence. His conviction was overturned in December 2016 due to egregious prosecutorial misconduct. Johnson accepted a plea deal and was released from prison on July 7, 2019.

In 2021, Missouri reformed its HIV-criminalization law, downgrading “reckless exposure” of someone to HIV from a Class B felony to a Class D felony. Moving away from the AIDS panic of the 1980s, the law applies to all “serious infections and communicable diseases,” instead of singling out HIV. Prosecutors must now prove someone “knowingly” exposed someone to HIV.

Policing Black bodies in a culture of fear

While HIV criminalization laws were originally targeted at gay men, they represent a small number of actual arrests.

“Based on the best data available, women of color who are sex workers and Black men targeted by police or those currently incarcerated make up most of the arrests and convictions,” Hanssen says.

Hanssen also describes how HIV criminalization laws don’t necessarily impact transmission, but may discourage vulnerable communities from accessing essential resources. “As I’ve suggested, laws based on myths and misconceptions surrounding HIV will perpetuate HIV stigma,” Hanssen said.

HIV-related stigma creates real obstacles for PLWH. The behaviors often associated with acquiring HIV — such as being gay or using intravenous drugs — are still stigmatized, and confirming or disclosing one’s HIV status is still widely perceived as socially dangerous. HIV-related stigma can discourage testing and prevention practices. Individuals may fear confirming their HIV status, let alone accessing education about transmission and prevention. HIV criminalization laws increase those fears.

“But look at who’s in political control — and who controls public health and the legal system. Those systems get off the hook by shifting blame to individuals. Instead of investing money into prevention, education, and awareness, they criminalize people.”

Robert Suttle, an HIV criminalization policy expert

“Telling a newly diagnosed person they will be prosecuted as a felon if they expose another person to HIV may not discourage them from having sex,” she said, “but it might discourage them from entering and staying in health care, particularly when medical mistrust is already so high among the vulnerable populations targeted by these laws.”

This is especially true for Black Americans, among whom medical mistrust may be a deeply rooted reaction to historical exploitation by incidents like the Tuskegee experiment and ongoing systemic racism.

Suttle explains how these laws cause particular harm to Black LGBTQ+ people by creating a culture of fear. “Is the public health system or legal system helping the people they claim to protect?” he asks, “The evidence shows they’re doing more harm than good.”

“For Black people — especially Black LGBTQ+ people — HIV isn’t just a medical condition,” he says. “It’s shaped by laws, policies, and institutions that operate from a culture of fear rather than science, and from control rather than care.”

Hanssen echoes Suttle, saying, “Telling people that they are a potential criminal based only on a diagnosed health condition is harmful, particularly to people who have been told for centuries that they are not worthy of equal treatment under the law based on race, sexual orientation, or gender identity.”

“There is now plenty of evidence demonstrating how HIV criminal laws increase stigma,” says Catherine Hanssens. “These laws create a uniquely harmful, un-American legal standard and produce felony penalties rooted in lack of knowledge about HIV transmission – that alone is enough to demand their repeal.”

Reforms vs. real change

Thanks to the work of state-based organizations like Free State Justice in Maryland, Equality California, and Washington State’s HIV Justice Network, so far, eight states have taken steps to reform their HIV criminalization laws, though not all have repealed them.

California and Washington State have made the biggest changes. Now, both states require proof that someone intended to transmit HIV or actually did so before they can be convicted. They have also removed most laws that made exposure to HIV or other diseases a crime, except in some cases involving sex offenders. Intentional transmission is now a misdemeanor in California, with a maximum sentence of six months, or in Washington State, 30 days.

By comparison:

North Carolina still connects criminal liability to viral load and engagement in care.
Iowa eliminated its sex offender registry requirement and tightened up intent requirements, but added “recklessness” as a standard for liability.
Virginia reformed its bill, but retains felony-level offenses.

Beyond reforms to state laws, Suttle suggests a paradigm shift away from focusing on individuals and toward the legal and justice systems is necessary for effective change.

“In an individualistic society, if HIV is happening, it’s treated like we [PLWH] caused it,” he says. “But no single individual can cause an epidemic. Instead of addressing external factors — poverty, lack of education, lack of access to healthcare — systems punish individuals. Those conditions are by design, not because people ‘created’ HIV.”

“But look at who’s in political control — and who controls public health and the legal system. Those systems get off the hook by shifting blame to individuals. Instead of investing money into prevention, education, and awareness, they criminalize people.”

“For Black LGBTQ communities, this is a matter of survival,” Suttle says. “HIV in America today isn’t simply defined by medicine. It’s defined by whether laws and institutions will catch up with science, provide equity, and understand the reality we’re living in.”

Subscribe to the LGBTQ Nation newsletter and be the first to know about the latest headlines shaping LGBTQ+ communities worldwide.

Terrance Heath is a longtime LGBT equality activist, writer, and award winning blogger. He lives in Chevy Chase, Maryland, with his two sons.

Senegal: CNLS issues guidelines on medical confidentiality and HIV care in prisons

Medical records and HIV: The CNLS imposes a strict ban targeting the prison administration

Health management in places of deprivation of liberty in Senegal is undergoing a major overhaul. In response to human rights issues, the National Council for the Fight against AIDS (CNLS) has issued a strategic guidance note detailing care protocols. According to information reported by the newspaper Le Quotidien, this approach aims to establish clear rules regarding the monitoring of people living with the virus in prisons.

The central point of this directive concerns medical confidentiality. The Executive Secretariat of the CNLS prohibits the disclosure of prisoners’ HIV status. In practical terms, the medical records of prisoners living with HIV (Pvvih) must be kept separate from the records managed by the prison administration. These documents remain the sole responsibility of the medical staff assigned to the infirmary.

The CNLS text also includes a scientific clarification intended for the day-to-day management of detention. The document specifies that an inmate carrying the virus can live in the community and share the same cell as other inmates without any risk of transmission.

From a medical standpoint, the protocol applied is in line with international standards, guaranteeing inmates the same care as the general population. Consultations are carried out in health centres or specialised hospital services, under the supervision of the prison medical service. Our editorial team also notes that HIV testing in prison is not compulsory; it is offered with the prisoner’s free consent, after psychosocial support.

The system provides for a full medical assessment upon incarceration. If the new arrival is already undergoing antiretroviral treatment, contact is established with their treating physician to prevent any interruption in treatment, a known factor in virus resistance. This initial examination also makes it possible to identify other comorbidities such as diabetes, hypertension or substance use disorders.

To support the implementation of these guidelines, the CNLS is rolling out training and advocacy sessions in the field. These meetings are aimed directly at professionals working in prisons, including senior nurses, warders and directors of detention and correctional centres (MACs).

Medical records and HIV: The CNLS fixe une interdiction stricte ciblant l’administration pénitentiaire

La gestion de la santé dans les lieux de privation de liberté au Sénégal fait l’objet d’un recadrage précis. Face aux enjeux liés aux droits humains, le Conseil National de Lutte contre le Sida (Cnls) a diffusé une note d’orientation stratégique détaillant les protocoles de prise en charge. Selon les informations rapportées par le journal Le Quotidien, cette démarche vise à instaurer des règles claires concernant le suivi des personnes vivant avec le virus au sein des prisons.

Le point central de cette directive concerne le secret médical. Le Secrétariat exécutif du Cnls pose l’interdiction de divulguer le statut sérologique des détenus. Concrètement, le dossier médical d’un détenu vivant avec le VIH (Pvvih) doit être impérativement séparé des dossiers gérés par l’Administration pénitentiaire. Ce document reste sous la responsabilité exclusive du personnel soignant affecté à l’infirmerie.

Le texte du Cnls intègre également une mise au point scientifique destinée à la gestion quotidienne de la détention. Le document précise qu’un détenu porteur du virus peut vivre en communauté et partager la même cellule que les autres pensionnaires sans aucun risque de transmission.

Sur le plan médical, le protocole appliqué s’aligne sur les normes internationales, garantissant aux détenus les mêmes soins qu’à la population générale. Les consultations s’effectuent dans des centres de santé ou des services hospitaliers spécialisés, sous la supervision du service médical carcéral. Notre rédaction note également que le dépistage du VIH au sein de la prison n’est soumis à aucune obligation ; il est proposé avec le libre consentement du détenu, après un accompagnement psychosocial.

Le dispositif prévoit une évaluation médicale complète dès l’incarcération. Si le nouvel arrivant suit déjà un traitement antirétroviral, une liaison avec son médecin traitant est établie pour prévenir toute rupture thérapeutique, un facteur connu de résistance au virus. Cet examen initial permet dans le même temps d’identifier d’autres comorbidités telles que le diabète, l’hypertension ou les troubles liés à l’usage de substances.

Pour accompagner l’application de ces directives, le Cnls déploie des sessions de formation et de plaidoyer sur le terrain. Ces rencontres ciblent directement les professionnels intervenant en milieu carcéral, notamment les infirmiers major, les surveillants et les directeurs des Maisons d’arrêt et de correction (Mac).

Benin: UNAIDS welcomes Benin’s new, pioneering HIV legislation

Benin adopts positive new law on HIV prevention, care and elimination of stigma and discrimination

UNAIDS welcomes the passing into law by the President of Benin Patrice Talon of Law 2026-02 on 9 February 2026. The law focuses on HIV prevention and management of care and will accelerate progress towards ending AIDS in the Republic of Benin.

The new law is the culmination of a process first initiated in 2013 and which resumed in 2020 under the leadership of the Health Program for the Fight against AIDS (PSLS). This revision was made due to the significant limitations of the 2006 law, namely that it was based on a punitive, coercive and stigmatizing approach.

The previous law was incompatible with human rights standards, allowed for numerous violations of confidentiality, criminalized HIV-related behaviors and reinforced the marginalization of key populations. The law was out of step with good public health practices which should be based on prevention, inclusion and respect for human rights.

The 2026 law is now aligned with international human rights standards and more specifically reaffirms the right to non-stigma and non-discrimination. It enhances privacy and data protection, ensures access to HIV care and prevention and services and recognizes key populations including sex workers, men who have sex with men, people who inject drugs, transgender people, migrants and prisoners among others. It improves prisoners’ rights significantly and reduces criminal provisions against people living with HIV by recognizing the strictly voluntary nature of disclosing HIV status.

“The journey to validating Benin’s HIV Law was powered by strong country leadership, exceptional UNAIDS–UNDP collaboration, unwavering support from the UN Regional Coordinator, close technical follow-up with the Ministry of Health, catalytic funding from UNAIDS, UNDP and Expertise France, and close involvement of parliamentarians — turning evidence into political will and political will into transformative legislation’’ said Yayé Diallo, outgoing UNAIDS Country Director for Togo and Benin.

The progress is the result of coordinated advocacy and collaborative partnership actions at all levels involving the UNAIDS Executive Director Winnie Byanyima, who made it a priority of her visit to Benin in September 2024.

UNAIDS Regional Office, the global HIV Legal Network and UNDP provided technical support. The Global Fund and Expertise France provided financial support and the combination of the efforts of various stakeholders at the local level, namely the PSLS, the CNLS-TP(Conseil National de Lutte contre le VIH/Sida, la Tuberculose, le Paludisme, les Hépatites, les Infections Sexuellement Transmissibles et les Épidémie), the parliament and its institutions (IPaB – Institut Parlementaire du Bénin), the caucus of women parliamentarians and parliamentary committees), civil society organizations including networks of people living with HIV and key populations. With this new law and rigorous monitoring of its application, Benin is resolutely committed to its march towards the ending AIDS by 2030.

“UNAIDS, the UN Country Team, and partners including Expertise France applaud Benin’s political resolve and its new, pioneering HIV legislation. By centering the law on vulnerable groups and youth who account for 35% of new infections, Benin is taking a giant leap towards universal access to HIV treatment and the ultimate goal of ending AIDS as a public health threat by 2030.” said Christian Mouala, Representative and Director of the UNAIDS Multi-Country Office for Côte d’Ivoire, Togo, and Benin.

New Zealand: Undetectable yet prosecutable, study highlights the need for law reform

Momentum for change on HIV criminalisation

A study of people living with HIV has revealed that despite advances in HIV treatment, criminalisation continues to create uncertainty and distress, with 60% of people living with HIV fearing legal consequences and many avoiding relationships altogether.

The full study and its findings will be released at a public event on 27 February at 3 pm at the Ellen Melville Centre in Auckland, by Positive Women, Body Positive, Toitū te Ao and Burnett Foundation Aotearoa.

The study surveying 247 people living with HIV in New Zealand, highlights the urgent need for rules and practice to align with modern HIV science. Over half of participants reported anxiety about legal consequences, particularly around disclosing HIV or discussing sexual practices with healthcare service providers.

“This shows that people living with HIV want to see HIV transmission managed by Public Health authorities, and not the Police. We have one of the highest rates of HIV criminalisation per capita globally, with at least 14 prosecutions since 1993,” says Liz Gibbs CEO of Burnett Foundation Aotearoa.

“The Government’s decision to sign the U=U Call to Action at Big Gay Out 2026 is a great first step in bringing New Zealand into line with overseas best practices on how to manage HIV.”

U = U stands for Undetectable = Untransmittable (U=U). It means that a person living with HIV who is on effective treatment and maintains an undetectable viral load cannot transmit HIV to sexual partner(s).

Senegal: New bill further criminalises LGBT people as well as advocacy and funding with major implications for civil society

Government tightens repressive measures against ‘unnatural acts’: Advocacy now punishable by imprisonment

Translated with AI – Scroll down for original article in French

Adopted by the Council of Ministers, the bill amends Article 319 of the Senegalese Penal Code: broadened definition, heavier penalties and, for the first time, criminalisation of advocacy and financing of such acts. Combined with Article 139 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, this text paves the way for systematic preventive detention for anyone who publicly expresses support for or finances activities in favour of LGBT people.

The Senegalese government wants to take a significant step forward in strengthening its legislation against homosexuality. At Wednesday’s Council of Ministers meeting, a bill amending Article 319 of Law No. 65-60 of 21 July 1965 on the Penal Code was examined and adopted. This text, which must still be submitted to the National Assembly for final promulgation, has three distinct parts: clarification of the legal definition of unnatural acts, tougher penalties, and, most innovatively, the inclusion of advocacy and funding of such acts in the sanctions.

Until now, Article 319, paragraph 3, of the Penal Code, in its version resulting from Law 66-16 of 12 February 1966, provided for imprisonment of one to five years and a fine of 100,000 to 1,500,000 CFA francs for any indecent or unnatural act committed with a person of the same sex. The text was deliberately general, with some legal experts describing it as a ‘catch-all’ provision, and only targeted the perpetrator of the act. The new reform aims to clarify the legal meaning of the concept of unnatural acts, increase the applicable penalties, and, above all, cross a new threshold: punishing not only the acts themselves, but also the speech and funding that support them.

Apology and funding in the crosshairs of the law

This is the provision that has been most commented on by the legal experts consulted. By including apology and funding in the scope of enforcement, the Senegalese legislature is explicitly targeting all forms of promotion, financial support or public justification of unnatural acts, whether in writing, in images, in speech or on social media. Human rights associations, NGOs funded by international donors, journalists and even ordinary internet users sharing activist content could theoretically fall within the scope of this provision. This extension to funding is particularly significant: it directly targets health organisations that receive foreign funding for their HIV prevention programmes among homosexual populations.

Article 139 of the CCP, automatic preventive detention in ambush

This is where the legal mechanism comes into its own. Article 139 of the Senegalese Code of Criminal Procedure provides that a committal order is mandatory when the public prosecutor makes duly reasoned requests in certain categories of cases. In other words, once an offence falls under this regime and the public prosecutor’s office decides to prosecute, the investigating judge is required to place the accused in pre-trial detention even before a judgement is handed down.

If the revised Article 319 is adopted as it stands and if the offences of promoting and financing unnatural acts fall within the scope of Article 139 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the practical result would be as follows: anyone arrested for promoting, even through a simple post on social media, or for financing activities in support of LGBT people could find themselves automatically placed in preventive detention on the simple instruction of the public prosecutor’s office. It is this link between the two texts that is of primary concern to defenders of civil liberties.

A context of renewed tensions

This reform comes at a time of heightened social tension. Since early February 2026, a case of deliberate HIV transmission in Keur Massar has led to the arrest of dozens of people, including some public figures, on charges including unnatural acts. The case, which has received widespread media coverage, has reignited the national debate on homosexuality and appears to have accelerated the government’s decision to strengthen existing legislation.

This reform echoes previous parliamentary attempts, notably the bill proposed by the And Samm Jikko Yi collective, which was rejected in 2022 due to a lack of consensus. The bill called for prison sentences ranging from five to ten years and already criminalised advocacy. The current government appears to be reviving the essence of this repressive framework, this time through a government bill, giving it greater institutional legitimacy.

Concerns about freedom of expression and press freedom

International human rights and press freedom organisations are alarmed by the potential side effects of this bill. The criminalisation of advocacy and funding, which is inherently difficult to define legally, could backfire on journalists covering these issues, researchers publishing papers, doctors raising awareness about sexual health, and even NGOs fighting HIV whose work involves addressing risky behaviour among homosexual populations and whose budgets come in part from foreign donors. Senegal was removed from the French Office for the Protection of Refugees and Stateless Persons (Ofpra) list of safe countries of origin in 2021, precisely because of the risks associated with sexual orientation.

The bill must now follow the ordinary legislative procedure before being enacted. Its final adoption is likely to spark intense debate in the National Assembly, as well as potential appeals to the Constitutional Council or international bodies. In the meantime, Article 139 of the Code of Criminal Procedure remains in the background, like a silent warning to all those who wish to speak out publicly or provide financial support for these issues.

Sénégal – Le gouvernement durcit l’arsenal répressif contre les « actes contre nature » : L’apologie désormais passible de prison

Adopté en Conseil des ministres, le projet de loi modifie l’article 319 du Code pénal sénégalais : définition élargie, peines alourdies et, fait inédit, criminalisation de l’apologie et du financement de ces actes. Croisé avec l’article 139 du Code de procédure pénale, ce texte ouvre ainsi la voie à des détentions préventives systématiques pour quiconque exprime publiquement un soutien ou finance des activités en faveur des personnes LGBT.

Le gouvernement du Sénégal veut franchir un pas significatif dans le renforcement de sa législation contre l’homosexualité. Lors du Conseil des ministres de ce mercredi, un projet de loi modifiant l’article 319 de la loi n°65-60 du 21 juillet 1965 portant Code pénal a été examiné et adopté. Ce texte, qui doit encore être soumis à l’Assemblée nationale pour promulgation définitive, comporte trois volets distincts : la précision de la définition légale des actes contre nature, le durcissement des peines encourues, et élément le plus novateur l’intégration dans les sanctions de l’apologie et du financement de ces actes.

Jusqu’à présent, l’article 319 alinéa 3 du Code pénal, dans sa version issue de la loi 66-16 du 12 février 1966, prévoyait un emprisonnement d’un à cinq ans et une amende de 100 000 à 1 500 000 francs CFA pour tout acte impudique ou contre nature commis avec une personne du même sexe. Le texte était volontairement général, certains juristes le qualifiant de « fourre-tout », et ne visait que l’auteur de l’acte. La nouvelle réforme entend clarifier ce que recouvre juridiquement la notion d’acte contre nature, alourdir les peines applicables, et surtout franchir un seuil inédit : sanctionner non plus seulement les actes, mais les discours et les financements qui les soutiendraient.

L’apologie et le financement dans le viseur de la loi

C’est la disposition la plus commentée par les juristes consultés. En intégrant l’apologie et le financement dans le champ répressif, le législateur sénégalais vise explicitement toute forme de promotion, de soutien financier ou de justification publique des actes contre nature, que ce soit par l’écrit, l’image, la parole ou les réseaux sociaux. Des associations de défense des droits, des ONG financées par des bailleurs internationaux, des journalistes et même de simples internautes partageant un contenu militant pourraient théoriquement entrer dans le champ d’application de cette disposition. Cette extension aux financements est particulièrement significative : elle cible directement les organisations de santé qui reçoivent des fonds étrangers pour leurs programmes de lutte contre le VIH au sein des populations homosexuelles.

Article 139 du CPP, la détention préventive automatique en embuscade

C’est ici que la mécanique juridique prend toute sa dimension. L’article 139 du Code de procédure pénale sénégalais prévoit que le mandat de dépôt est obligatoire lorsque le procureur de la République prend des réquisitions dûment motivées dans certaines catégories d’affaires. En d’autres termes, dès lors qu’une infraction visée entre dans ce régime et que le parquet décide de poursuivre, le juge d’instruction est tenu de placer l’inculpé en détention provisoire avant même qu’un jugement ne soit rendu.

Si l’article 319 révisé est adopté en l’état et si les délits d’apologie et de financement des actes contre nature intègrent le champ d’application de l’article 139 du CPP, le résultat pratique serait le suivant : toute personne interpellée pour avoir fait la promotion, même par un simple post sur les réseaux sociaux, ou pour avoir financé des activités en faveur des personnes LGBT pourrait se retrouver placée en détention préventive automatique sur simple instruction du parquet. C’est cette articulation entre les deux textes qui préoccupe au premier chef les défenseurs des libertés.

Un contexte de tensions ravivées

Cette réforme intervient dans un contexte de vive tension sociale. Depuis début février 2026, une affaire de transmission volontaire du VIH à Keur Massar a conduit à l’arrestation de plusieurs dizaines de personnes, dont certaines personnalités publiques, sous des chefs d’inculpation incluant les actes contre nature. L’affaire, fortement médiatisée, a relancé le débat national sur l’homosexualité et semble avoir accéléré la décision gouvernementale de renforcer la législation existante.

Cette réforme fait écho à des tentatives parlementaires antérieures, notamment la proposition de loi du collectif And Samm Jikko Yi, rejetée en 2022 faute de consensus, qui demandait des peines allant de cinq à dix ans d’emprisonnement ferme et qui criminalisent déjà l’apologie. Le gouvernement actuel semble reprendre l’essentiel de cette architecture répressive, en la portant cette fois par la voie d’un projet de loi gouvernemental, lui conférant une légitimité institutionnelle plus solide.

Des inquiétudes sur la liberté d’expression et la liberté de la presse

Des organisations internationales de défense des droits humains et de la presse s’alarment des effets de bord potentiels de ce texte. La criminalisation de l’apologie et du financement, par nature difficile à délimiter juridiquement, pourrait se retourner contre des journalistes traitant de ces sujets, des chercheurs publiant des travaux, des médecins sensibilisant à la santé sexuelle, ou encore des ONG de lutte contre le VIH dont le travail implique d’aborder les comportements à risque au sein des populations homosexuelles et dont les budgets proviennent en partie de bailleurs étrangers. Le Sénégal avait d’ailleurs été retiré en 2021 de la liste des pays d’origine sûrs par l’Ofpra français, précisément en raison des risques liés à l’orientation sexuelle.

Le projet de loi doit à présent suivre la procédure législative ordinaire avant d’être promulgué. Son adoption définitive soulèvera vraisemblablement des débats intenses à l’Assemblée nationale, ainsi que de potentiels recours devant le Conseil constitutionnel ou des instances internationales. En attendant, l’article 139 du Code de procédure pénale reste en toile de fond, comme un avertissement silencieux adressé à tous ceux qui souhaiteraient s’exprimer publiquement ou apporter leur soutien financier à ces questions.

New Zealand: Government backs U=U, opening door to reform of HIV non-disclosure laws

Burnett Foundation Aotearoa welcomes the Government’s decision on U=U

Associate Health Minister Doocey’s decision to sign the U=U declaration today is a critical step on the road towards zero locally acquired HIV transmissions in Aotearoa New Zealand.

“The U=U message helps increase testing, treatment adherence, and viral suppression rates, but most importantly, it increases the confidence and dignity of people living with HIV. It’s proof that science and compassion walk hand in hand,” says Liz Gibbs, CEO of Burnett Foundation Aotearoa.

This decision makes New Zealand the 5th country to sign the multinational U=U Call to Action, behind Australia, Canada, the USA, and Vietnam.

“Currently people living with HIV may face prosecution under the Crimes Act for HIV non-disclosure to their sexual partners (unless they are using a condom), even if they are on treatment with an undetectable viral load and therefore pose zero risk of transmission. With the Government’s official endorsement of U=U, it gives the Police, Courts and government departments the backing required to modernise outdated guidelines and policies, so they are in-keeping with the latest science.” says Gibbs.

This is a significant step forward that many across the HIV and sexual health community have been advocating for several years, and we are thrilled to see it finally come to pass.

US: Ryan White’s mother calls for HIV law reform in Indiana

Decades after Ryan White, Indiana still criminalizes HIV

Nearly 40 years ago, my son Ryan White became the face of HIV stigma in America. Diagnosed with AIDS at 13 after contracting HIV from a blood product used to treat his hemophilia, Ryan faced profound discrimination. He was banned from school, shunned by his community and even threatened because of widespread fear and misinformation about HIV. Despite this, Ryan used his short life to fight stigma and discrimination.

Today, that fight continues as Indiana confronts the urgent need to reform its HIV criminal laws and remove stigma from our statutes.

It’s heartbreaking to realize that even decades after Ryan’s death, stigmatizing HIV laws remain on the books. Indiana’s HIV criminal laws were enacted in the 1980s, when fear overshadowed science. At the time, people believed HIV could be spread through casual contact — beliefs we now know are false. Yet those assumptions continue to shape the law today.

Indiana’s laws punish people living with HIV for actions that do not transmit the virus, including attempting to donate blood, having sex while using proven prevention methods or even spitting. Saliva does not transmit HIV, and the blood supply is safe due to robust screening. These laws defy modern science and undermine public health by reinforcing stigma.

Stigma remains one of the greatest barriers to ending the HIV epidemic. It discourages people from getting tested, seeking treatment, and disclosing their status ― all critical steps to preventing transmission. When stigma drives people away from care, the virus continues to spread.

The good news is that we now have the tools to end HIV. Advances in treatment allow people living with HIV to live long, healthy lives. With proper care, the virus becomes undetectable — and undetectable means untransmittable (U=U). Medications like PrEP (pre-exposure prophylaxis) and PEP (post-exposure prophylaxis) can prevent HIV transmission altogether. Yet outdated HIV criminal laws ignore these advances and fuel the very stigma Ryan worked so hard to fight.

That’s why I’m calling on Indiana lawmakers to modernize the state’s HIV criminal laws and align them with current science. Reform is a necessary step toward reducing stigma, improving public health, and honoring the dignity of people living with HIV.

I can’t help but think about how these laws would have impacted Ryan if he were alive today. Knowing my son — who dedicated his life to education and understanding — could have been criminalized under Indiana law is deeply painful. We owe it to Ryan and to the thousands of Hoosiers living with HIV, to do better.

On Feb. 28, HIV Is Not a Crime Awareness Day, I urge all Hoosiers to contact their elected officials and demand meaningful reform of Indiana’s HIV criminal laws. Together, we can honor Ryan’s legacy by replacing fear with facts, stigma with science and misinformation with compassion. It’s time to end HIV stigma in Indiana once and for all.

Jeanne White-Ginder is an AIDS activist and mother of the Ryan White.

US: New Williams Institute analysis shows HIV criminalization disproportionately targets Black communities

Black Americans are disproportionately criminalized for living with HIV.

Through “heightened surveillance, arrest, and conviction,” Black Americans are more likely to be criminalized for their HIV.

Black people in the U.S. aren’t just more likely to have HIV — they’re more likely to be criminalized for it.

Black Americans accounted for about 38 percent of new HIV diagnoses and 39 percent of people living with HIV in 2023, according to a report from the Williams Institute, despite making up around 12 percent of the population.

Black women had the highest HIV diagnosis rate at 19.6 per 100,000, which is about 11 times the rate for white women at 1.8 per 100,000. Black boys and men ages 13 to 24 accounted for 47 percent of all new diagnoses among youth, while white boys and men made up just three percent.

Even with higher rates of infection, Black Americans are less likely to be on medications that treat HIV, with just 64 percent receiving care and 53 percent virally suppressed. They are also less likely to have health insurance, as 12.3 percent of Black adults ages 19 to 64 did not have health insurance in 2024, compared to 6.8 percent of white adults.

Black Americans are more likely to be criminalized for their HIV as well, as they are often subjected to “heightened surveillance, arrest, and conviction within the criminal legal system,” according to the report. In 64 percent of states analyzed, they faced higher rates of arrest than their share of people living with HIV. For example, Black people in California were 6 percent of the state population and 18 percent of people living with HIV, but 39 percent of HIV-related arrests.

They’re also more likely to face harsh post-conviction penalties like sex offender registration. In Tennessee, Black people were 17 percent of the state’s population and 55 percent of people living with HIV, but 74 percent of people on the sex offender registry with an HIV-related conviction.

“Most HIV criminal laws were enacted before effective HIV treatment and prevention tools became widely available,” said Nathan Cisneros, director of the HIV Criminalization Project at the Williams Institute. “In recent years, there has been a push to reform or repeal these laws as policymakers and the public increasingly recognize that these laws can discourage testing, increase stigma, and deepen disparities — especially for Black Americans.”

Mexico: Colima Congress calls on federal lawmakers to repeal “danger of contagion” crime

Congress urges to eliminate the crime of “danger of contagion” from the Federal Criminal Code

Translated with AI. Scroll down for original article in Spanish

The State Congress approved by a majority a point of agreement to urge the Federal Chamber of Deputies to repeal the crime of “danger of contagion” of the Federal Criminal Code, considering it a discriminatory, stigmatizing legal figure and contrary to the human right to health.

The proposal was presented in the forum by Deputy Alfredo Álvarez, who argued that this type of crime, originally incorporated in 1949 and expanded in 1991, criminalizes the health condition of people, particularly those living with HIV, without the need to prove real damage or the effective transmission of a disease.

During his speech, the legislator pointed out that this figure violates fundamental principles such as equality before the law, proportionality and non-discrimination, in addition to promoting social stigma and generating barriers to access to health services.

The approved exhortation is based on the position of various national and international organizations, including UNAIDS, which has warned that the criminalization of HIV does not prevent contagion and, on the contrary, discourages diagnosis and timely treatment; as well as the Ministry of Health, which has pointed out that this crime revictimizes people living with HIV.

Pronouncements of Conapred, the National Commission on Human Rights (CNDH) and COPRED are also cited, which agree that the crime of danger of contagion has a stigmatizing character and must be eliminated to guarantee a public health policy based on human rights and scientific evidence.

Álvarez Ramírez recalled that entities such as Mexico City, Colima, Nayarit, San Luis Potosí, Aguascalientes and Baja California have already repealed or do not contemplate that crime in their criminal codes. He also stressed that on February 18, 2025, the Justice Committee of the Chamber of Deputies approved an opinion to eliminate this figure from the federal level.

With this agreement, the Colimense Congress specifically urges to reform articles 60 and 315, as well as to repeal Article 199 Bis of the Federal Criminal Code, moving towards a legal framework that protects health without criminalizing or stigmatizing.

“Legislating from the human rights implies abandoning punishment as a health policy and building laws based on scientific evidence and human dignity,” said Deputy Alfredo Álvarez at the end of his speech.

Exhorta Congreso a eliminar delito de “peligro de contagio” del Código Penal Federal

El Congreso del Estado aprobó por mayoría un punto de acuerdo para exhortar a la Cámara de Diputados federal a derogar el delito de “peligro de contagio” del Código Penal Federal, al considerarlo una figura jurídica discriminatoria, estigmatizante y contraria al derecho humano a la salud.

La propuesta fue presentada en tribuna por el diputado Alfredo Álvarez, quien argumentó que ese tipo de delito, incorporado originalmente en 1949 y ampliado en 1991, criminaliza la condición de salud de las personas, particularmente de quienes viven con VIH, sin que sea necesario demostrar un daño real o la transmisión efectiva de una enfermedad.

Durante su intervención, el legislador señaló que esa figura vulnera principios fundamentales como la igualdad ante la ley, la proporcionalidad y la no discriminación, además de fomentar el estigma social y generar barreras para el acceso a servicios de salud.

El exhorto aprobado se sustenta en la postura de diversos organismos nacionales e internacionales, entre ellos ONUSida, que ha advertido que la criminalización del VIH no previene contagios y, por el contrario, desincentiva el diagnóstico y el tratamiento oportuno; así como la Secretaría de Salud, que ha señalado que ese delito revictimiza a las personas que viven con VIH.

También se citan pronunciamientos de la Conapred, la Comisión Nacional de los Derechos Humanos (CNDH) y COPRED, los cuales coinciden en que el delito de peligro de contagio tiene un carácter estigmatizante y debe ser eliminado para garantizar una política de salud pública basada en derechos humanos y evidencia científica.

Álvarez Ramírez recordó que entidades como Ciudad de México, Colima, Nayarit, San Luis Potosí, Aguascalientes y Baja California ya han derogado o no contemplan ese delito en sus códigos penales. Asimismo, destacó que el 18 de febrero de 2025, la Comisión de Justicia de la Cámara de Diputados aprobó un dictamen para eliminar esta figura del ámbito federal.

Con ese acuerdo, el Congreso colimense exhorta específicamente a reformar los artículos 60 y 315, así como a derogar el Artículo 199 Bis del Código Penal Federal, avanzando hacia un marco jurídico que proteja la salud sin criminalizar ni estigmatizar.

“Legislar desde los derechos humanos implica abandonar el castigo como política de salud y construir leyes basadas en evidencia científica y dignidad humana”, expresó el diputado Alfredo Álvarez al cierre de su intervención.

2025 in review: more reported cases, uneven reform

In 2025, HIV criminalisation remained a persistent, global human rights and public health failure – visible both in the rise in reported prosecutions and in the continued mismatch between HIV science and legal practice. Despite significant law reform momentum in several jurisdictions, we found evidence of unjust arrests, charges, and convictions reported in 27 countries. However, while the number of reported HIV criminalisation cases increased in 2025, this rise was driven largely by intensified enforcement and reporting in a limited number of countries, rather than a widening of criminalisation across new jurisdictions.

Rising case numbers concentrated in fewer countries

Our Global HIV Criminalisation Database included 112 reported cases between January 1st and December 31st, 2025. This represents the highest annual total recorded in the database in recent years – almost double the number documented in 2024, and more than twice the annual totals seen between 2021 and 2023.

A defining feature of 2025 was how strongly case reports clustered in specific countries. However, unless cases are systematically reported either in official, public-facing court databases, relying on media and/or civil society reported cases means we are only seeing the most visible portion of a much larger reality.

Nevertheless, one country – Uzbekistan – accounted for more than half of all reported cases. This is partly because Uzbek courts publish all HIV criminalisation cases online, but mainly due to an exceptionally broad and punitive legal framework combined with extensive mandatory HIV testing. Article 113 of the Criminal Code criminalises mere awareness of HIV status, with no distinction between exposure and transmission and no defences for condoms, viral suppression, or informed consent, creating a very low threshold for prosecution. Mandatory testing laws targeting key populations and returning migrants further increase detection without any link to alleged criminal conduct, resulting in more people being identified and prosecuted than anywhere else.

Alongside this, Russia and the United States continue to feature prominently in HIV criminalisation case reports, with the United Kingdom, France, South Korea and Canada represented by at least two reported cases in 2025.

Same harms, familiar forms

Across the 2025 cases list, several recurring patterns stood out:

Non-disclosure and “exposure” prosecutions remained the default legal response, with multiple non-disclosure prosecutions in the United States proceeding without allegations of transmission, and exposure-only cases continuing in Russia despite no demonstrated risk of harm.
Criminal cases disproportionately arose from contact between law enforcement and marginalised people – including gay men, sex workers, trans people, and people already in detention – illustrating how HIV criminalisation disproportionately arises in contexts shaped by stigma, surveillance, and law enforcement contact with marginalised communities.
Criminalisation extended beyond sexual contexts, with no-risk conduct framed as intentional harm, including spitting prosecutions in Canada and the United States, and prosecutions linked to needle or blood incidents in the United Kingdom and Brazil.
Cross-border consequences persisted even after legal “wins”, illustrated by Ireland’s deportation of a man whose conviction had been overturned by the Supreme Court, and by the persistent risk of immigration and residency consequences in Canada and the United States, where HIV-related prosecutions can have lasting effects beyond the criminal process itself.
Legacy criminalisation continued to create procedural chaos, as seen in Zimbabwe where prosecutions and litigation persisted despite the HIV criminalisation law having previously been repealed, and in countries such as Russia where outdated HIV-specific provisions continue to be applied alongside general criminal law, producing inconsistent charging practices.

Legal reform: progress alongside persistent risk

Despite a challenging political environment, 2025 saw several concrete legal and policy developments that signalled continued momentum toward reform, particularly at the sub-national level.

In the United States, state-level action remained the primary driver of change. In Maryland, the governor signed legislation repealing the state’s HIV-specific criminal statute, removing a law long criticised for its incompatibility with current scientific evidence. North Dakota also enacted legislation addressing outdated HIV criminalisation provisions, narrowing their scope and reducing the reach of HIV-specific penalties.

In Mexico, reform efforts continued across multiple jurisdictions. Baja California eliminated “danger of contagion” language from its criminal code, and advocacy to repeal or amend similar provisions continued in other states, alongside renewed engagement at the federal level.

In Ukraine, parliament approved the first reading of legislation to remove HIV criminalisation from the Criminal Code. While the law reform process has stalled in the context of ongoing conflict, the move towards repeal represents a significant legislative step and an important signal of political commitment under difficult circumstances.

Alongside these gains, 2025 also highlighted the fragility of reform and the persistence of resistance in several settings.

In Canada, frustration grew over the continued absence of comprehensive federal reform of HIV non-disclosure criminalisation. Despite longstanding commitments and extensive advocacy, progress remained stalled, reinforcing concerns about the ongoing misuse of the criminal law.

In Australia, debate intensified in South Australia and New South Wales around the use of mandatory or forced HIV testing powers. Public health experts and community advocates raised concerns about the scientific basis, proportionality, and potential harms of these approaches.

And the United States faced a renewed and deeply troubling risk of regression under the shadow of the Trump administration’s domestic and global anti-rights agenda. Proposals to expand sexually transmitted infection criminalisation – including legislative initiatives in Louisiana – signalled how rapidly decades of hard-won progress can be dismantled when punishment, surveillance, and moral regulation are reasserted as policy priorities. In this climate, HIV criminalisation once again becomes a ready tool of control, underscoring how fragile reform remains and how urgently sustained resistance is required.

Looking ahead to 2026

Legal reform is both possible and underway, yet unjust prosecutions persist – and in some settings appear to be accelerating – even as HIV science has never been clearer about the effectiveness of treatment and the realities of transmission risk. The 112 reported cases are not merely a statistic; they reflect the continued, routine embedding of stigma within criminal legal systems, where outdated assumptions are enforced despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

In 2026, the HIV Justice Network will prioritise consolidating reform gains while confronting jurisdictions where criminalisation remains entrenched or is intensifying. This will include targeted advocacy and capacity-building in high-volume prosecution settings; strengthened documentation and analysis of enforcement patterns to support evidence-based reform; and deeper engagement with prosecutors, judges, and policymakers to bring law and practice into line with contemporary HIV science.

Central to this work will be two UNAIDS-supported initiatives: the completion and dissemination of Good Practices in HIV Decriminalisation, providing practical, jurisdiction-tested guidance for lawmakers and advocates; and the expansion of the Expert Consensus Statement on the Science of HIV in the Context of Criminal Law to explicitly address breastfeeding, ensuring that evolving evidence is accurately reflected in legal and policy frameworks.

Together, these efforts aim to prevent new prosecutions, reduce harm, and accelerate a coordinated, science-based push to end HIV criminalisation worldwide.