Canada: Further reform is needed to redress the harms HIV criminalization brings to the lives of women living with HIV

Recommendations on changes to HIV criminalization don’t go far enough

Earlier this summer, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights released a report on Canada’s approach to criminalizing those who don’t disclose that they’re living with HIV to sexual partners.

If the Standing Committee’s recommendations are adopted, they could diminish the harms experienced by women living with HIV under Canada’s current approach to criminalization.

But further consideration and consultation are required in order to fully address the harms that the law introduces to the lives of women living with HIV.

The Supreme Court of Canada articulated the current legal approach in 2012. In so doing, the court interpreted consent and fraud provisions of Canada’s sexual assault laws and ruled that people diagnosed with HIV must disclose their status to sexual partners before engaging in sexual acts that pose a “realistic possibility of transmission.”

The court also stated that there is no legal obligation to disclose prior to sex if a condom is used and the person living with HIV has a consistently low measure of HIV in their blood. This legal understanding of a “realistic possibility” contradicts current scientific knowledge that just one of these conditions is sufficient to eliminate transmission risk.

Scientific evidence endorsed by the federal government demonstrates that an undetectable viral load eliminates the risk of sexual transmission of HIV, regardless of condom use. Similarly, there is a negligible risk of transmission when condoms are used properly, no matter an individual’s viral load.

Today, in addition to being inconsistent with current scientific evidence, HIV nondisclosure prosecutions are widely seen as unjust as they can result in harsh sentences for actions that result in little or no harm.

Canadian prosecutors and courts apply the criminal offences of sexual assault and aggravated sexual assault to prosecute cases of HIV nondisclosure. The latter — one of the most serious offences in Canada’s Criminal Code — carries the possibility of a lifetime sentence and mandatory registration as a sexual offender.

Experts discuss the misuse of sexual assault law in prosecuting cases of HIV nondisclosure in Canada. From Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network & Goldelox Productions.

Women living with HIV & the law

“The law is a bigger risk to us than HIV.” Sophie

The criminalization of HIV nondisclosure was purportedly intended to protect women while reducing HIV transmission risk by promoting disclosure and safer sex practices. Instead, research indicates that punitive approaches have the opposite effects, many of them significantly harmful.

As health scientists at Simon Fraser University, we work alongside experts on two studies: the Canadian HIV and Women’s Sexual and Reproductive Health Study (CHIWOS), with researchers also from the University of Toronto, McGill University, University of Manitoba, University of Saskatchewan and McMaster University; and the Women, ART and the Criminalization of HIV (WATCH) study with health partners based at McMaster University.

Findings from these studies indicate that criminalization reinforces socially dominant power dynamics, stigma, marginalization and fear experienced by women living with HIV. Specifically, the current legal requirements ignore the dangers women face in both negotiating the use of condoms and status disclosure due to power inequities, particularly in dependent, violent and non-consensual relationships.

À lire aussi : Why a fulfilling sexual life with HIV matters

“I was raped by three [people …] And if I had told [them] I was HIV positive, I would have been dead. I know it. So where does that fit in the picture?” Julie

Women living with HIV who don’t disclose their status when they are sexually assaulted may themselves be convicted of a sexual offence.

Not only does criminalization contradict scientific evidence around HIV transmission risk, it compromises women’s health-care engagement and deters HIV testing since those who do not know their status cannot be prosecuted. Yet access to HIV testing, treatment and support services is scientifically proven to decrease transmission risk.

Furthermore, women who aren’t prosecuted are still harmed by the law. For example, women who have experienced emotional and physical violence by abusive partners may face the threat of partners falsely reporting that the woman didn’t disclose her HIV status.

Living under the fear of being charged has significant consequences for women’s emotional, mental and physical well-being. This is particularly important given the high rates of physical and sexual violence experienced by women living with HIV in Canada.

“It seems like an impossible situation to prove your innocence.” Miranda

These findings were shared with the Standing Committee through expert testimony by members of CHIWOS and WATCH. Such contributions are integral in moving toward an approach to criminalization that considers the realities of people living with HIV.

Women living with HIV and others share their experiences and knowledge of the criminalization of HIV nondisclosure in Canada. From Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network & Goldelox Productions.

Recommendations could go further

The Standing Committee’s report makes recommendations in a positive direction, but the recommendations need to go further to reduce harms to women living with HIV.

Firstly, the committee recommends creating a new offence in the Criminal Code for nondisclosure of an infectious disease where transmission happens. This recommendation says prosecutions should never be pursued in cases where: an individual has an undetectable viral load; condoms were used; the sexual partner of a person living with HIV is taking pre-exposure prophylactics; or the sexual act carries a negligible risk of transmission (oral sex, for example).

This suggested requirement of a new offense where actual transmission occurs would minimize, though not fully eliminate, opportunities for the law to be used as a tool of violence against women.

Though the creation of a new offence would address the current problematic use of sexual assault laws, failing to consider the intent of not disclosing is significant. In 2008, the United Nations urged states to limit prosecution of HIV nondisclosure to extremely rare cases of actual and intentional transmission.

Heed women’s experiences

Without including the element of intent, the committee has not fully addressed the vulnerability of women who may unintentionally transmit HIV during their own sexual assault or an unprotected sexual encounter. Given the widespread violence experienced by women living with HIV in Canada, this is a substantial deficiency in the recommendations.

And, given the report’s recognition that criminalization has not achieved its public-health goal of reducing HIV transmission, transmission of any infectious disease should be addressed by public-health mechanisms rather than the law.

Secondly, the report recommends ensuring that the same conditions are applied cross-country to consider whether prosecutions should proceed in cases where people haven’t disclosed that they are living with HIV. This recommendation would address the disparities in prosecutions of HIV nondisclosure and reduce various harms to people living with HIV.

Finally, the report recommends a review of all past convictions for HIV nondisclosure and increased access to anonymous testing. These measures are significant in beginning to redress the harms introduced by the current legal approach.

But to fully do that, Canada must heed all the experiences of women living with HIV.

US: Charges of HIV exposure for spitting, despite absence of risks, prove that Georgia needs to modernise its HIV laws

HIV-positive man’s arrest for spitting called ‘plain and simple discrimination’

A 31-year-old man in Rome, Ga., was charged with exposing police officers to HIV after allegedly spitting on them, which HIV activists said highlights why the state needs to fix its HIV laws.

Authorities said JS was swearing at people and making obscene gestures near the intersection of Maple Road and Park Road on Aug. 25, according to the Marietta Daily Journal. S allegedly spat on officers after being apprehended by the Floyd County Police Department.

S was charged with criminal trespass, two misdemeanor counts of disorderly conduct, three misdemeanor counts of willful obstruction of police officers and three felony counts of assault on police officers by someone with HIV, according to the Floyd County Sheriff’s Office. He is being held without bond in the Floyd County Jail.

HIV cannot be transmitted by spitting, according to the Centers for Disease Control & Prevention. S’s arrest highlights why Georgia needs to modernize its HIV laws, according to Nina Martinez of the Georgia HIV Justice Coalition.

“In 2019, it’s not breaking news that saliva does not transmit HIV,” she told Project Q Atlanta. “And yet, the punishment for a person living with HIV who spits on a police officer is potentially 20 times greater than that for someone not living with HIV who commits the same offense. This is state-sanctioned discrimination, plain and simple.”

Malcolm Reid, another member of the Georgia HIV Justice Coalition, agreed with Martinez.

“Although we don’t know much about this specific case, we do know that there is no chance of HIV transmission through spit,” he said. “This proves once again that the laws in Georgia need to catch up to science. HIV is not a crime.”

Georgia is one of some three-dozen states that criminalize a lack of HIV disclosure. Activists and lawmakers have tried for years to modernize state law by decriminalizing HIV.

A Republican lawmaker introduced an HIV decriminalization bill on the final day of this year’s legislative session. It will be back in the 2020 session in January.

An Athens man was arrested in July after allegedly having sex with a woman without informing her he had HIV. He was charged with reckless conduct by a person with HIV. He remains in Athens-Clarke County Jail nearly two months later on a $3,000 bond, according to the Clarke County Sheriff’s Office.

A gay Atlanta man was arrested for HIV exposure in South Carolina in 2015. He claimed he disclosed his status before having sex with the alleged victim. The charges were later dropped.

Uganda: Recent case of woman, unjustly jailed for allegedly injecting a baby with HIV, highlights the need to act against HIV criminalisation

Woman Who was Wrongfully Jailed for Premeditated HIV Infection Speaks Out

“I spent two weeks in custody asking [to be released on bond], but they could not even bond me out, saying I was a non-resident. When we went to court, I asked for bail, and they refused. They refused to give me bail until they convicted me.”

By Kampala Post Reporter

On the evening of August 29, 2019, Sylvia Komuhangi walked out of the Gulu High Court premises accompanied by a female prisons security official. She had a smile plastered on her face. It was not a beaming smile. It was a restrained smile, the kind of smile that projects more relief than joy.

The 32-year-old secondary school teacher, who was wrongfully sentenced to two years in jail for injecting a baby with HIV-infected blood, walked a 50-meter stretch to the parking lot area where her lawyer, Immaculate Owomugisha waited. Komuhangi and Owomugisha shook hands, hugged and clasped their hands around each other’s waist for a while. The journalists present at court took pictures of the two, and then Owomugisha stepped back to let Komuhangi share her thoughts with the media.

With half a dozen video cameras and audio recorders in position, Komuhangi responded to the first question asking how it felt to regain her freedom after eight months in Kitgum Central prison, 805 kilometers away from her home in Rukungiri.

“I feel so happy,” she said. “It was so difficult.”

A Friendly Visit Gone Wrong

On December 27, 2018, Komuhangi was arrested and charged at Kitgum Magistrate’s Court with the offence of committing a “negligent act likely to spread disease contrary to Section 171 of the Penal Code Act of the Republic of Uganda.”

During her trial, at the Magistrate’s Court, the prosecution stated that at about 9 P.M. on December 26, 2018, Komuhangi carried the alleged victim away from her babysitter to the bedroom and then returned later, with the baby crying.

The prosecution continued that when the mother, Eunice Lakot, examined her baby, she found swellings in both armpits. She took the baby to Kitgum hospital for diagnosis, where doctors reportedly confirmed that the swellings were caused by injections. Consequently, a medical professional tested Komuhangi for HIV, and she was found positive. Next, the child was given Post-exposure Prophylaxis (PEP), an antiretroviral medication that prevents infection to anyone exposed to HIV during the first ninety-six hours. Subsequently, Komuhangi was arrested.

After regaining her freedom, Komuhangi narrated that she had traveled to Uganda’s northern region from the Kampala for a tour in late December 2018, and spent several nights at a friend’s house in Kitgum Town. After a visit to the Kidepo Valley National Park, she returned to Kitgum Town to find her friend’s home surrounded by local authorities. “We were arrested there and then,” she narrates.

The conviction was handed out by the Chief Magistrate of Kitgum, Hussein Nasur Ntalo, on Thursday, July 4th. On Komuhangi’s release, Lakot, the mother of the baby, shared that the most recent results showed that her baby is HIV negative. Lakot, nevertheless, said she was not happy with the High Court’s ruling, but the baby’s maternal grandmother, Rose Oryem, said they would not challenge the court’s decision.

Komuhangi’s story was covered by leading media houses in the country, including the Daily Monitor, the country’s leading independent media house. It caused a public uproar in a country whose laws make it a crime to “willfully and intentionally” transmit HIV and also give the legal right to medical staff to disclose a patient’s HIV status to others without his or her consent.

In fact, Komuhangi is not the first convict as a result of those laws. In 2014, a 64-year-old nurse in Kampala, Rosemary Namubiru, was accused of injecting a toddler with her HIV-positive blood in the process of administering treatment. Namubiru was put on trial amid pressure from several local and international organisations, including the Global Commission on HIV and the Law, who castigated the quality of the media reporting in the immediate aftermath of her arrest.

“The media engaged in unabashed and unverified sensationalism. Rosemary was branded a ‘killer,’ guilty of maliciously and intentionally attempting to transmit her own HIV infection to a child,” said the Commission’s statement.

“Subsequent to those allegations, the baseless rumour-mongering escalated: various news reports branded Rosemary a fiendish serial offender; a nurse who was mentally ill; a nurse without credentials…. Sadly, we’re convinced that the charge was originally laid because of the media frenzy,” added the statement.

Taking Action Against HIV Criminalization

When Komuhangi’s case hit the media headlines, it took a similar tone to that of Namubiru. As a result, it caught the eye of the Uganda Network on Ethics, Law and HIV/AIDS (UGANET), a non-governmental organisation whose goal is to advocate for the development and strengthening of an appropriate policy, legal human rights and ethical response to HIV/AIDS in Uganda.

Owomugisha, who is the UGANET head of advocacy and strategic litigation, says cases that involve HIV are not subjected to sufficient rigor, with sentiments often carrying the day at the expense of proper investigation, prosecution, and objectivity in court.

“Most convictions are based on unfair, inaccurate and overblown facts,” she says. “The media usually joins to hype up stories [and] this sensationalism crowds out good judgment, resulting in a miscarriage of justice.” Speaking particularly about Komuhangi’s case, Owomugisha said the media continued a pattern of HIV criminalization by condemning the suspect even before the initial trial.

“Several media houses were set on the loose name-calling such as “murderer and killer.” The media buzz was everywhere, including on the radio airwaves for days. This undressed Komuhangi of all dignity,” she said.

UGANET decided to offer legal representation to Komuhangi, resulting in a swift appeal against her conviction. Within two months from the first time the appeal was first lodged before the Gulu High Court, she had regained her freedom. Justice Stephen Mubiru, who handled the appeal, quashed the conviction, saying that forensic tests showed that DNA traces found on the cloth that Komuhangi used to wrap the baby belonged to her but did not contain any blood.

“I could not find any connection between her piece of cloth and the blood said to have been injected into the baby because the swelling found on the baby could have been a mere rash,” he added, according to a detailed report in the Daily Monitor newspaper.

Another of Komuhangi’s lawyers, Louis Odong, said the ruling sent a message to people who criminalize HIV victims not to engage in the practice while Owomugisha added that the court’s decisions had restored “dignity to Sylvia Komuhangi and many like her.”

“We commend the court decision for setting an example that if courts scratched below the surface news, they would realize HIV positive status alone does not equate to malicious intent,” she said.

The Executive Director of UGANET, Dora Kiconco Musinguzi, whose organisation works with 32 other HIV law and human rights groups, said the criminalization of people living with HIV, not only undermines the HIV response by compromising public health and human rights but that there is also no evidence of benefit from those laws.

“As a community of HIV actors, we remind the nation that we cannot end AIDS, or reach epidemic control with HIV criminalization coupled with heightened HIV discrimination. Human rights and dignity need to be accorded to all. We need to stop stigma and end HIV criminalization,” she stated.

Kiconco said that in light of court’s decision, the community of people living with HIV and organisations that UGANET works with recommend that the Constitutional Court should fast track the hearing of Petition No. 24 of 2016, through which their issues were presented to the country’s second-highest judicial organ for interpretation.

“More lives continue to be adversely affected by the HIV criminal law. Justice delayed is justice denied,” she added. Kiconco also called on Parliament to re-visit the HIV criminal laws with a view to law reform as “some of the laws are unfair, vague and will encourage trumped-up charges often.”

She said the law had been diverted from its original intent to create an environment where HIV is criminalized and where complications arise for persons living with HIV. The final appeal from Kiconco was directed to actors at all levels of the justice sector to increase rigor while handling HIV-related cases and to the media fraternity to exercise restraint while reporting on matters regarding the HIV criminal law.

“Our Constitution espouses a key principle – innocent until proven guilty. Abusing victims with names such as ‘monster and murderer’ is wrong. This jeopardizes their chance for a fair hearing,” she emphasized.

US: “People living with HIV are being prosecuted because the law is not keeping pace with science”

Living With H.I.V. Isn’t a Crime. Why Is the United States Treating It Like One?

States’ nondisclosure statutes, used to persecute marginalized populations, discourage testing and treatment.

By Chris Beyrer and Robert Suttle

Dr. Beyrer is an infectious disease epidemiologist. Mr. Suttle was convicted under Louisiana’s H.I.V. criminalization statute.

Michael Johnson, a former college athlete convicted in 2015 of not disclosing his H.I.V.-positive status to sexual partners, was released on parole from a Missouri prison last month. Mr. Johnson, who is gay and black, had maintained his innocence, and there was no proof that he had transmitted the virus. And yet that didn’t seem to matter in the court of public opinion, or in the court of law.

On Dec. 20, 2016, a Missouri appeals court ruled that Mr. Johnson’s trial had been “fundamentall y unfair.” H.I.V. nondisclosure is inherently difficult to prove yet seemingly easy to condemn, as shown time and again by judges and juries worldwide. Nowhere is this truer than in the United States, where people with H.I.V. are still being prosecuted under outdated or misapplied laws.

During the early years of the AIDS epidemic, an H.I.V. infection was tantamount to a death sentence. Through major advances in antiretroviral therapies, H.I.V. is now a manageable, chronic condition. A person whose infection is newly diagnosed can expect to live a near-normal life span, and most seropositive people will never progress to further AIDS-defining complications.

Today we also know much more about how difficult H.I.V. is to spread. When used correctly, condoms are highly effective means of prevention. Research has also shown that when people are treated with antiretroviral drugs so that their viral load cannot be detected by standard blood tests, the virus cannot be transmitted to sexual partners. This true of both heterosexual and male same-sex couples. Simply put, scientific evidence on actual harm and transmission does not support the singling out of people living with H.I.V. through the heavy hand of criminal law.

Mr. Johnson’s trial was rightly deemed unjust due to prosecutorial misconduct. But injustice remains deeply entrenched within the society that created the laws that criminalized his actions in the first place. At least 29 states, mostly in the Midwest and Deep South, have laws that make H.I.V. nondisclosure, exposure or transmission a crime.

These laws constitute one more layer of marginalization for those whom the criminal justice system already disproportionately prosecutes, convicts and harshly sentences: black people, trans women, migrants, people who sell sex, people who inject drugs and L.G.B.T.Q. youths. Such laws have not been shown to reduce H.I.V. transmission, but they do discourage those at risk from getting tested, which undermines public health rather than protects it.

The United States has the unfortunate distinction of being among the countries most aggressively prosecuting people living with H.I.V., after Russia and Belarus, according to a recent report by H.I.V. Justice Worldwide. In these places, people living with the virus could be just one disgruntled partner away from finding themselves in a courtroom.

In the United States there are thousands of cases where H.I.V.-specific charges were filed, or people faced heightened charges or punishments simply because they had the virus. We don’t know how many others have been threatened or blackmailed with criminal prosecution — the law becomes a weapon in abusive relationships — but those numbers are surely considerable. In almost all cases, this all-too-real risk is greater than any (highly unlikely) risk of actual H.I.V. transmission.

Prompted by concerns that the law was being applied contrary to scientific evidence, last summer a group of 20 H.I.V. scientists from around the world issued an expert consensus statement intended to assist experts involved in cases of alleged H.I.V. exposure, transmission or nondisclosure. They urged governments and people working in the justice system to ensure that the significant advances in H.I.V. science are taken into account in H.I.V.-related legal cases.

As the global scientific community continues to learn more about the disease and its transmission risks, lawmakers and criminal justice systems must similarly evolve their thinking to align with evidence, not fear. Scientists and clinical providers have obligations here, too. They should use their knowledge to support law reform efforts and provide expert testimony, using the consensus statement to educate and advocate change. No one should be forced to endure what Michael Johnson, and so many others living with H.I.V., have had to suffer.

Chris Beyrer is a professor in public health and human rights at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.

Robert Suttle is the assistant director of the Sero Project, which works to end unfair H.I.V.-related prosecutions.

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.

US: Laws should not penalise marginalised populations that might lack access to drugs, instead HIV exposure should be decriminalised altogether unless there was clear intent to infect someone

Sex with HIV still a crime? Updated laws divide advocates

ATLANTA (AP) — As Sanjay Johnson describes it, his sexual encounter with James Booth on Oct. 2, 2015, was a one-night stand. But it would bind the men inextricably two years later, when Booth walked into an Arkansas police station and accused Johnson of exposing him to HIV.

Little Rock prosecutors pursued a criminal charge against Johnson even though a doctor said he couldn’t have transmitted HIV to Booth because he was on medication that suppressed his virus.

“It really tested me just to keep going,” Johnson said about his criminal case, which ended this year. “Last year, I thought of suicide.”

Booth said he deserved to know about Johnson’s HIV status regardless of any medical treatment.

“I could have protected myself,” he said.

Roughly 20 states have laws like the one in Arkansas that make it a crime for people with HIV to have sex without first informing their partner of their infection, regardless of whether they used a condom or were on medication that made transmission of the disease effectively impossible.

Health experts and advocates for HIV patients say that rather than deterring behavior that could transmit the virus, such laws perpetuate stigma about the disease that can prevent people from getting diagnosed or treated.

North Carolina and Michigan recently updated their HIV policies to exempt HIV patients from prosecution if they’re on medication that has suppressed their virus. A Louisiana law that took effect in August 2018 allows defendants to challenge a charge of exposing someone to HIV by presenting evidence that a doctor advised them they weren’t infectious.

Many advocates say the new policies create an underclass of people who lack access to drugs and are therefore still vulnerable to prosecution. They say states should instead decriminalize HIV exposure altogether unless the person intends to infect someone.

“We shouldn’t be creating laws that create additional strata and divisiveness among already marginalized populations,” said Eric Paulk, deputy director of Georgia Equality.

The fight comes as the Trump administration aims to eradicate HIV — the virus that causes AIDS — by 2030.

The laws’ defenders point to statistics showing tens of thousands of new HIV diagnoses each year and say that although the disease may not be a death sentence anymore, it still requires a lifetime of expensive medical treatment.

The Arkansas attorney general’s office filed a brief last year in Johnson’s case rejecting the argument that criminalizing HIV exposure no longer served any purpose.

“HIV remains a serious threat to public health,” it wrote.

In Booth and Johnson’s case, they met through a gay dating app.

According to Booth, Johnson denied he was HIV positive before they had unprotected sex. Johnson, 26, said he didn’t remember discussing his HIV status.

A plea deal that prosecutors offered Johnson shows officials were mindful of advances in the science around HIV, said John Johnson, chief deputy prosecutor in Pulaski County. The deal allowed the accused man to avoid prison time and have his record expunged.

But prosecutors also wanted to promote the importance of disclosing HIV to potential sexual partners, he said.

“The flip side of this coin is that there is a victim to this crime,” the prosecutor said.

People with HIV who are on antiretroviral drugs that keep their viral load below a specific threshold have “effectively no risk” of transmitting HIV, according to the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. But as of 2016, only a little more than half of the estimated 1.1 million people living with HIV in the U.S. were virally suppressed, the CDC says.

Sarah Lewis Peel, spokeswoman for North Carolina’s Department of Health and Human Services, said in an email that her state’s new policy ensures HIV prevention and control strategies are “firmly rooted in science.” Responding to criticism that the change leaves some people behind, she listed multiple programs that cover HIV medication.

Critics say states should decriminalize HIV exposure altogether unless there’s intent to infect someone. That would reflect the reality that HIV is manageable and not easy to contract, dozens of advocacy groups said in a July 2017 consensus statement.

Georgia may be headed in that direction. Pending legislation would require intent to transmit HIV for a prosecution.

It’s not clear how many people have faced prosecution under HIV laws around the country, but data from two states analyzed by a think tank at the University of California, Los Angeles, School of Law indicate they aren’t isolated occurrences. Florida and Georgia authorities made nearly 1,500 arrests on suspicion of HIV-related crimes from the 1980s through 2017, hundreds of which resulted in convictions, according to the Williams Institute.

Booth said he tested positive for HIV after his encounter with Johnson. Johnson’s doctor, Nathaniel Smith, told The Associated Press that Booth couldn’t have contracted HIV from Johnson because a lab test around the time of their encounter showed Johnson’s viral load was too low. Smith, who testified in Johnson’s case, also directs the Arkansas Department of Health.

Johnson pleaded no contest in February to aggravated assault as part of his deal with prosecutors and was sentenced to five years’ probation. He would have faced up to 30 years behind bars and the possibility of having to register as a sex offender had a jury convicted him of the HIV-exposure charge.

He has a new job helping people manage their diets but said his arrest and prosecution left a scar.

“It did make me more closed off,” he said.

Booth said he has sympathy for what Johnson went through but stands by his decision to tell police.

“It was something that needed to be done,” he said.

Mexico: Mexican Network of Organisations against HIV criminalisation calls on Veracruz State Congress to stop proposed criminalisation legislation

NGOs call local deputy to stop proposal that criminalizes people with HIV

Google translation, scroll down for Spanish article

On April 30, 2018, the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation ruled in favour of the Unconstitutionality Action 139/2015 promoted by the National Human Rights Commission

The Mexican Network of Organizations Against HIV Criminalization, called upon the deputy chairwoman of the Administration and Budget Commission of the Veracruz State Congress, Jessica Ramírez Cisneros, to stop the legislative process of her proposal to reform articles 157 and 158 of the Criminal Code of the State , where it is intended to impose from six months to five years in prison and a fine of up to 50 Units of Measurement and Update (UMA) who, fraudulently, endangers of “contagion” of a serious illness to another person

In this, it is considered among these serious and communicable diseases to “syphilis, gonorrhea, hepatitis B and C, herpes, HIV, tuberculosis” , which contradicts the historical ruling of the SCJN that invalidates the modification of the annulment of article 158.

Through a letter addressed to the legislator to channel their efforts for human rights and encourage the repeal of article 158 of the Criminal Code for the Free and Sovereign State of Veracruz of Ignacio de la Llave.

Remember that on April 30, 2018, the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation ruled in favor of the Unconstitutionality Action 139/2015 promoted by the National Human Rights Commission , at the request of the Multisectoral Group on HIV / AIDS and STIs of the State of Veracruz, against the amendment to article 158 of the Criminal Code for the Free and Sovereign State of Veracruz of Ignacio de la Llave, in whose content the penalty for the offense of alleged “contagion” (transmission should be said) was added to who has sexually transmitted infections, specifying HIV.

ONGs llaman a diputada local parar propuesta que criminaliza a personas con VIH

El 30 de abril de 2018, la Suprema Corte de Justicia de la Nación falló a favor de la Acción de Inconstitucionalidad 139/2015 promovida por la Comisión Nacional de los Derechos Humanos

La Red Mexicana de Organizaciones contra la Criminalización del VIH, hizo un exhorto a la diputada presidenta de la Comisión de Administración y Presupuesto del Congreso del Estado de Veracruz, Jessica Ramírez Cisneros, detener el proceso legislativo de su propuesta para reformar los artículos 157 y 158 del Código Penal del Estado, en donde se pretende imponer de seis meses a cinco años de prisión y multa de hasta 50 Unidades de Medida y Actualización (UMA) a quien, dolosamente, ponga en peligro de “contagio” de una enfermedad grave a otra persona.

En esta, se considera entre dichas enfermedades graves y transmisibles a la “sífilis, gonorrea, hepatitis B y C, herpes, VIH, tuberculosis”, misma que contradice el fallo histórico de la SCJN que invalida la modificación del anula el artículo 158.

A través de una carta dirigida a la legisladora canalizar sus esfuerzos en pro de los derechos humanos y fomente la derogación del artículo 158 del Código Penal para el Estado Libre y Soberano de Veracruz de Ignacio de la Llave.

Recuerdan que el 30 de abril de 2018, la Suprema Corte de Justicia de la Nación, falló a favor de la Acción de Inconstitucionalidad 139/2015 promovida por la Comisión Nacional de los Derechos Humanos, a solicitud del Grupo Multisectorial en VIH/sida e ITS del Estado de Veracruz, en contra de la reforma al artículo 158 del Código Penal para el Estado Libre y Soberano de Veracruz de Ignacio de la Llave, en cuyo contenido se agregó la sanción por delito de presunto “contagio” (debería decirse transmisión) a quien presente infecciones de transmisión sexual, especificando VIH.

[Update]Zimbabwe: Bill to repeal legal provision that criminalises “wilful” transmission of HIV now set to be tabled before Parliament for debate

Source: Chronicle, July 22,2019

Government moves to decriminalise HIV transmission

Zvamaida Murwira, Harare Bureau

GOVERNMENT has moved to decriminalise wilful transmission of HIV to a partner after it gazetted the Marriages Bill that seeks to repeal a legal provision that makes it an offence.

The Marriages Bill, which was gazetted last Friday, decriminalises the transmission of HIV and Aids to another partner, as Government seeks to keep abreast with international standards.

The Bill is now set to be tabled before Parliament for debate.

Section 53 of the Marriages Bill repealed Section 79 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act which makes it an offence to transmit HIV to a partner.

Section 79 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act (Chapter 9:23) titled “Deliberate transmission of HIV” states that, “(1) any person who

(a) Knowing that he or she is infected with HIV; or

(b) realising that there is a real risk or possibility that he or she is infected with HIV; intentionally does anything or permits the doing of anything which he or she knows will infect, or does anything which he or she realises involves a real risk or possibility of infecting another person with HIV, shall be guilty of deliberate transmission of HIV, whether or not he or she is married to that other person, and shall be liable to imprisonment for a period not exceeding twenty years.”

Early this year, Justice, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs Minister Ziyambi Ziyambi told Parliament that the global thinking was that the law stigmatised people living with HIV and Aids.

He said initially when the law was enacted, the thinking was that it would help to fight the spread of the disease by criminalising those that transmit it to partners willingly.

Accused persons that have been charged under the law were alleged to have unprotected sex with their spouses knowing that they were infected with HIV.

Proponents who argued for the abolishment of the law argued that at present medical evidence did not determine which of the adult partners was infected first if one was not a virgin at the point of the alleged transmission.

In the past, those charged under the law have challenged the constitutionality of Section 79 of the Criminal law, arguing that their right under section 23 of the Constitution not to be discriminated against on any basis including HIV and Aids status was being violated.

They also argued that their right to protection of the law under section 18 was being violated because the offence in question was so wide, broad and vague.

The challenge to the constitutionality of this offence was focused on the species of this offence requiring only that when the accused had sex with another person, the accused realised the real risk or possibility that he or she was infected with HIV and that there was a real risk that the other person will be infected.

Counsel for the applicants argued that this formulation of the offence violated the constitutional right to protection of law as it was conjectural and vague.

They contended that innocent persons were in danger of being convicted under this provision.

It was argued that there were other ways of HIV and Aids transmission like victims of syringes known to have been contaminated with HIV.

Those who called for the repeal of the law also cited Justice Edwin Cameron, an HIV-positive Justice of the Supreme Court of Appeal in South Africa who said:

“The use of criminal law to address HIV infection is inappropriate except in rare cases in which a person acts with conscious intent to transmit HIV and does so.”

In the past, UNAIDS organisation has urged “governments to limit criminalisation to cases of intentional transmission.”

Source: Bulawayo 24 news, May 11, 2019

HIV/Aids transmission law repeal approved by Cabinet

The Marriages Amendment Bill which will repeal a legal provision that criminalises “wilful” transmission of HIV to a partner has been approved by Cabinet.

Justice, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs Minister Ziyambi Ziyambi said a Clause in the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act that criminalises transmission of HIV by one partner to another would be repealed.

Minister Ziyambi said this yesterday in Harare while responding to questions from journalists during a post Cabinet briefing which was chaired by Environment, Tourism and Hospitality Industry Minister, Prisca Mupfumira.

He said the Marriages Amendment Bill which was approved by Cabinet would also repeal that Clause of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act.

“Yes, indeed Cabinet approved that we repeal the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act where it speaks about these criminalisation so we will repeal the Criminal Code in this regard,” said Minister Ziyambi.

The Marriages Amendment Bill will soon be gazetted before it is tabled before Parliament for debate.

The decision to decriminalise transmission of HIV dovetails with what Minister Ziyambi told Parliament earlier this year.

In March, Minister Ziyambi made an assurance to repeal the Clause during a question and answer session after Zengeza West legislator Mr Job Sikhala (MDC-Alliance) had asked if Government was considering amending the law which criminalise transmission of HIV.

“When this legislation came into effect, the thinking then was that we need to control the spread of HIV by criminalising those who transmit it to partners knowingly. But the global thinking now is that that law stigmatises people living with HIV and studies have shown that it does not produce the results that were intended. What the Ministry is going to do is to repeal that section of the law and ensure that we keep up with modern trends in the world,” said Minister Ziyambi in the National Assembly.

He said the fastest way of doing it was to incorporate the provision in the Marriages Amendment Bill.

Earlier on Minister Mupfumira said Cabinet approved the Coroner’s Office Bill.

She said the Bill sought to help safeguard human lives through facilitating specialising investigation of preventable deaths and identification of deceased persons.

“The country has previously relied on expatriates for the specialised investigations required to conclude such cases, which arrangement has now become unsustainable. In more precise terms, the Bill will establish an efficient coroner system to look into the cause of death in the following circumstances among deaths that occur without a medical doctor’s attention, surgical operation table deaths and deaths while in jail, police custody or other central authority control,” said Minister Mupfumira.

US: Rep. Tracy McCreery plans to file new bill again next year to change Missouri’s HIV criminalisation statute

Next Steps: ‘Decriminalizing’ HIV in Missouri

As elected officials vacate Jefferson City and return to their families and jobs, The Missouri Times is bringing you updates on big initiatives that didn’t quite make it through before May 17. The “Next Steps” series will showcase progress made on certain legislative issues and a look ahead to what could come.

Missouri’s statute regarding people living with HIV do not reflect “current reality,” according to lawmakers and advocates working to “decriminalize” the disease.

Missouri statute mandates an individual who is knowingly infected with HIV not act in a “reckless” way that could expose another person to the disease without his or her knowledge or consent. Violating the statute could result in a Class A or B felony, depending on if another individual contracted HIV.

The way the statute is written deters people from finding out his or her status and seeking appropriate treatment, advocates say. The statute also suggests an HIV diagnosis is equivalent to a death sentence — but with modern science and medicine, that’s not necessarily the case.

“We need to make sure our laws reflect our current reality,” Rep. Tracy McCreery, a Democrat from the St. Louis area, told The MIssouri Times. “Now, people who are living with HIV live very full, healthy lives. We feel like the statutes need to be updated to be medically accurate so prosecutors have tools to use at their disposal that reflect the current reality of that disease.”

Both McCreery and GOP Rep. Holly Rehder filed bills in the 2019 legislative session that would have changed the state’s statute regarding people with HIV to base prosecution more on an “intent” basis. Although their bills had minor differences, McCreery said the fact both women filed and supported the legislation is indicative that the need for change is bipartisan.

What happened to legislative efforts this year?

Rehder’s HB 167 made it to the House floor where it was debated before it eventually stalled. The bill sought to tweak the criminal statute for someone who exposed another individual to HIV. It would have also ensured protections for someone who took “practical means” to prevent the transmission of the disease such as through compliance with medical treatment or the use of a condom, for some examples.

“Right now, Missouri laws are medically inaccurate and stand as a disincentive to know your status if you have HIV, even though with proper treatment, a person’s life expectancy is almost equal to someone without the virus,” Rehder previously told The Missouri Times.

McCreery’s HB 166 made it through the House Health and Mental Health Policy Committee but did not progress further.

Both bills would apply the law to all serious infectious or communicable diseases instead of just HIV.

Stil, McCreery said the legislative efforts saw success — particularly from an educational standpoint as lawmakers were especially engaged in debate on the House floor before the session ended — and has set them up in a better position for the upcoming session.

“Although we ran out of time with this session with the bill … I think we’re in a much better place starting out in January because now that we’ve had a debate on this bill on the floor, I feel like a lot more colleagues are more supportive of the legislation now and had an ‘aha’ moment on the floor when they realized current statutes were written so long ago and are not based on accurate science,” McCreery said. “I feel like that was a victory.”

“Ultimately we’re both trying to get at the same things: We both think HIV should be decriminalized because if we do that, Missourians would be encouraged to know their status, and then they wouldn’t be facing the possibility of criminal charges by knowing their status,” she added.

So what’s next?

The momentum is there; they just need to capitalize on it, McCreery said of herself and Rehder for the upcoming session. She said she plans to file a similar bill again next year and doesn’t doubt Rehder will too. (Rehder did not respond to a request for comment for this story.)

“We feel we have done a great job of not only getting the conversation started, but we now believe we truly have started to break down the stigma surrounding HIV,” McCreery said.

Ahead of next session, members of the nonprofit Empower Missouri plan to grow the Missouri HIV Justice Coalition as well as meet with prosecuting attorneys and lawmakers — particularly those who sit on committees that might hear the legislation. The organization is also seeking a Senate sponsor for the legislation in the coming session.

“What we have does not work, and it’s important that we change it,” Jeanette Mott Oxford, executive director of Empower Missouri, told The Missouri Times.

Oxford maintained there is still a stigma surrounding HIV that has fueled laws like the one currently on the books in Missouri.

“There are certain things where the public perception works against good public policy, and this is one of those areas where our current law actually rewards ignorance,” Oxford said. “We want to create a world in which everybody is anxious to know their status, will go be tested, and trust that the public health officials won’t go help prosecute them.”

‘Show-Me’ statistics

More than 12,000 people in Missouri are living with HIV, according to data from AIDSVu, a product of Emory University’s Rollins School of Public Health. Caldwell, Jackson, and Mississippi Counties reported the most number of cases per 100,000 people in 2016.

It affects mostly men and minorities in Missouri: More than 46 percent of people living with HIV in Missouri in 2016 are Hispanic or Latinx, nearly 44 percent are black, and more than 5 percent are white. Additionally, more than 82 percent of people living with HIV in Missouri are men.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) designated Missouri as one of seven states with a “substantial rural burden” for people living with HIV. Within the state, the nation’s health protection agency flagged more than a dozen counties considered vulnerable or at-risk for outbreaks: Bates, Cedar, Crawford, Hickory, Iron, Madison, Ozark, Reynolds, Ripley, St. Francois, Washington, Wayne, and Wright.

Kaitlyn Schallhorn

Kaitlyn Schallhorn is a reporter with The Missouri Times. She joined the newspaper in March 2019 after working as a reporter for Fox News in New York City. Throughout her career, Kaitlyn has covered political campaigns across the U.S. and humanitarian aid efforts in Africa. She is a native of Missouri who studied journalism at Winthrop University in South Carolina. Contact Kaitlyn at kaitlyn@themissouritimes.com.

The Global Network of People Living with HIV (GNP+) and the HIV Justice Network (HJN) condemn dismissal of appeal in Singapore HIV criminalisation case

The Global Network of People Living with HIV (GNP+) and the HIV Justice Network (HJN) condemn dismissal of appeal in Singapore HIV criminalisation case

The Global Network of People Living with HIV (GNP+) and the HIV Justice Network (HJN) condemn the dismissal of the appeal by a Singaporean man living with HIV who was convicted to two years’ imprisonment for not disclosing his status to his sexual partner and for not communicating the risk of HIV transmission to his sexual partner. We are particularly concerned that the judgement has emphasised the lack of explaining the risk of HIV transmission as the main reason for dismissing the appeal.

“HIV prevention is a shared responsibility and therefore not the sole responsibility of people living with HIV. If more people are sensitised to the rights of people living with HIV, including their sexual rights, and were aware of the mechanisms of HIV transmission there would be far less stigma and discrimination towards people living with HIV. Furthermore, HIV criminalisation creates a bad public health environment where people living with HIV have fears in disclosing their status, which lead to delay in engaging in care and treatment,” said Rico Gustav, Executive Director of GNP+.

According to the Infectious Diseases Act in 2016 of Singapore, Section 23 (1) a person who knows that he has HIV Infection shall not engage in any sexual activity with another person unless, before the sexual activity takes place — (a) he has informed that other person of the risk of contracting HIV Infection from him; and (b) that other person has voluntarily agreed to accept that risk.

“HIV is the only disease singled out as a transmittable disease in the Infectious Diseases Act,” said Edwin Bernard, Global Co-ordinator of the HIV Justice Network. “Not only does this perpetuate stigma, it also creates a false sense of security, suggesting that only people with diagnosed HIV can transmit HIV, when many new infections come from those who are undiagnosed. Ironically, a law such as this one that places such an onerous burden on people with diagnosed HIV, is only likely to make HIV testing, and open and honest discussions around HIV, less likely.”

Furthermore, the facts of the case reported in the judgement suggest that there was no effective HIV risk during any sexual activity, regardless of whether or not disclosure – and acceptance of risk – was established beyond reasonable doubt. Condoms were used early in the relationship, and subsequently when condoms were not used, the unjustly convicted man had a very low viral load.

As expressed in the Expert Consensus Statement on the Science of HIV in the context of criminal law, HIV criminalisation laws and prosecutions have not always been guided by the best available scientific and medical evidence, have not evolved to reflect advancements in knowledge of HIV and its treatment, and can be influenced by persistent societal stigma and fear associated with HIV. HIV continues to be singled out, with prosecutions occurring in cases where no harm was intended; where HIV transmission did not occur, was not possible or was extremely unlikely; and where transmission was neither alleged nor proven.

GNP+ and HJN not only strongly condemn this legislation and the dismissal of appeal of this case, but all kinds of HIV criminalisation, which often entails legislation that is applied in a manner inconsistent with contemporary medical and scientific evidence and includes overstating both the risk of HIV transmission and also the potential for harm to a person’s health and wellbeing. Such limited understanding of current HIV science reinforces stigma and may lead to human rights violation and undermines efforts to address the HIV epidemic.

Canada: Justice Committee report recommends wide-ranging reforms to HIV criminalisation, including removing HIV non-disclosure from sexual assault law

Yesterday, the House of Commons Standing Committee of Justice and Human Rights released a ground-breaking report “The Criminalization of HIV Non-Disclosure in Canada” recommending that the Government of Canada works with each of the Canadian provinces and territories to end the use of sexual assault law to prosecute allegations of HIV non-disclosure.

According to a press release issued by our HIV JUSTICE WORLDWIDE partners, the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network:

People living with HIV currently face imprisonment for aggravated sexual assault and a lifetime designation as a sex offender for not disclosing their HIV status to sexual partners, even in cases where there is little or even zero risk of transmission. This means a person engaging in consensual sex that causes no harm, and poses little or no risk of harm, can be prosecuted and convicted like a violent rapist. We welcome the Committee’s recognition of this unjust reality and their call to end the use of sexual assault laws. We and our allies have spent many years advocating for this critical change.

The report also recommends that Canada limits HIV criminalisation to actual transmission only. The Legal Network notes:

But we must go further: criminal prosecution should be limited to cases of intentional transmission as recommended by the UN’s expert health and human rights bodies. Parliament should heed such guidance. Criminal charges and punishments are the most serious of society’s tools; their use should be limited and a measure of last resort.

However, one of the recommendations that the Legal Network takes issue with is the recommendation to broaden any new law to include other infectious diseases.

Infectious diseases are a public health issue and should be treated as such. We strongly disagree with the recommendation to extend the criminal law to other infectious diseases. We will not solve the inappropriate use of the criminal law against people living with HIV by punishing more people and more health conditions.

Currently, there is a patchwork of inconsistent approaches across each province and territory. Only three provinces — Ontario, British Columbia and Alberta — have a formal policy in place or have directed Crown prosecutors to limit prosecutions of HIV non-disclosure, and they all fall short of putting an end to unjust prosecutions.

A December 2018 federal directive to limit HIV criminalisation, which solely applies to Canada’s territories, is already having some impact — in January 2019 it led to Crown prosecutors in the Northwest Territories dropping a wrongful sexual assault charge against a man living with HIV in Yellowstone. “We followed the directive and chose not to prosecute,” said Crown attorney Alex Godfrey.

Other positive recommendations in the report include:

An immediate review of the cases of all individuals who have been convicted for not disclosing their HIV status and who would not have been prosecuted under the new standards set out in the recommendations of the Committee.
These standards must reflect “the most recent medical science regarding HIV and its modes of transmission and the criminal law should only apply when there is actual transmission having regard to the realistic possibility of transmission. At this point of time, HIV non-disclosure should never be prosecuted if (1) the infected individual has an undetectable viral load (less than 200 copies per millilitre of blood); (2) condoms are used; (3) the infected individual’s partner is on PrEP or (4) the type of sexual act (such as oral sex) is one where there is a negligible risk of transmission.”
And, until a new law is drafted and enacted (which is only likely to happen if the current Liberal Government is re-elected in October), there should be implementation of a common prosecutorial directive across Canada to end criminal prosecutions of HIV non-disclosure, except in cases where there is actual transmission.

The report also recommends that any new legislation should be drafted in consultation with “all relevant stakeholders including the HIV/AIDS community”, which the Legal Network also welcomed.

The report is the result of a study of the ‘Criminalization of Non-Disclosure of HIV Status’ that ran between April and June 2019. Many Canadian experts testified as key witnesses to help MPs gain insight into why Canada’s current approach is wrong. HIV JUSTICE WORLDWIDE also submitted a brief to the committee, providing international context to Canada’s extremely severe approach to HIV non-disclosure.

The Legal Network concludes:

The next step is actual law reform. The report makes clear that change to the criminal law is needed. Any new legal regime must avoid the harms and stigma that have tainted the law these past 25 years.