Belarus: Roundtable attended by representatives of state and international organisations discuss possible amendments to the criminal code in cases of HIV transmissions

Roundtable on the decriminalization of HIV transmission in couples.

(Google translation, for original article in Russian, please scroll down)

During the autumn session in the House of Representatives of the National Assembly of the Republic of Belarus, the draft Law of the Republic of Belarus “On Amending Certain Codes of the Republic of Belarus” will be considered in the second reading. In mid-October, a hearing on the amendment to art. 157 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Belarus, which was proposed for consideration by the Deputy Commissioner for Health, Physical Culture, Family and Youth Policy – Olga Viktorovna Mychko.

The text of the amendment – “The person who committed the acts provided for in part 1 and part 2 of this article shall be released from criminal responsibility if another person who is at risk of infection or is infected with HIV has been promptly warned about the presence of the first disease and voluntarily agreed to take actions that created the danger of infection or led to HIV infection ”

October 3, 2018, as the initiator of changes in legislation that criminalizes HIV, with the support of the Ministry of Health of the Republic of Belarus organized and held a roundtable: “Decriminalizing HIV transmission in couples” in order to strengthen the arguments presented, or find new ones for those government structures that are against amending or imposing additional requirements that need to be worked out.

In his speech, the Chairman of the Standing Committee of the House of Representatives on National Security, Valentin Vladimirovich Mikhnevich, spoke about the replies received in their Commission to the request for an amendment to Art. 157.

The Supreme Court of the Republic of Belarus – it is necessary to work out what to consider “put on notice of the presence of HIV” (consent in writing and with an explanation).

The General Prosecutor’s Office of the Republic of Belarus is against.

MIA is neutral.

Investigative Committee – supported.

The KGB is neutral.

Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Belarus – supported.

Ministry of Health of Belarus – supports.

The main subject of discussion of the meeting were possible alternatives to the amendment (the version proposed initially recognized as the most efficient), and an important issue was discussed – how can a partner be informed about HIV if it is legally confirmed, and on the other hand does not become negative factor for people living with HIV.

The expert evaluation of the proposals received at the event was made by Bronnikov Andrei Sergeevich – the head of the department for the preparation of bills and interaction with the Standing Committee of the House of Representatives on National Security, as well as Drobkov Anton Viktorovich – Chief Adviser of the Office of Legislation, National Security and Law Enforcement of the Republic of Belarus.

The roundtable was attended by representatives of state and international organizations – Tatiana Fedorovna Migal (Ministry of Health RB), Vyacheslav Ivanovich Gran’kov (WHO), Sergeenko Svetlana Vladimirovna (RCH & E), Elena Geraldovna Fisenko (RSPC MT).

Speakers expertly informed about the achievements of modern medicine in the field of HIV, both in the country and in the world, about the epidemiological situation in the country, as well as about the expert consensus on scientific evidence about HIV infection in the text of criminal law.

Representatives of our organization – Tatiana Zhuravskaya and Anatoly Leshenok made a presentation – “Review of the current situation of application of Art. 157 of the Criminal Code “Infection of HIV”. About the urgency of changing the responsibility for HIV transmission. ”

Modified proposals will be used during the Parliamentary hearings, which will be held in literally 10 days. Representatives of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Belarus, the General Prosecutor’s Office of the Republic of Belarus, the Ministry of Internal Affairs, the Investigative Committee, the KGB, the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Belarus, the Ministry of Health of the Republic of Belarus, as well as a representative of the People’s PLUS NGO will be invited to the hearing.

Many thanks to all those who took part in the Round Table, leading to Alexander Tsekhanovich, people who decided to come and tell their stories of suffering due to the action of art. 157 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Belarus – Julia, Lena, Sasha, Slava – THANK YOU VERY MUCH!

Published on October 4, 2018 on People Plus website

————————————————-

Круглый стол о декриминализации передачи ВИЧ в семейных парах.

В течение осенней сессии в Палате Представителей Национального Собрания РБ будет рассматриваться во втором чтении проект Закона Республики Беларусь «Об изменении некоторых кодексов Республики Беларусь». На середину октября в Постоянной комиссии Палаты представителей по национальной безопасности запланированы слушания по поправке в ст. 157 УК РБ, которую предложила к рассмотрению Депутат Комиссии по здравоохранению, физической культуре, семейной и молодежной политике – Ольга Викторовна Мычко.

Текст поправки – «Лицо, совершившее деяния, предусмотренные ч. 1 и ч. 2 настоящей статьи, освобождается от уголовной ответственности в случае, если другое лицо, поставленное в опасность заражения либо зараженное ВИЧ-инфекцией, было своевременно предупреждено о наличии у первого этой болезни и добровольно согласилось совершить действия, создавшие опасность заражения или приведшие к заражению ВИЧ»

3 октября 2018 года, РОО «Люди ПЛЮС», как инициатор изменений в законодательство, которое криминализирует ВИЧ, при поддержке Министерства Здравоохранения РБ организовали и провели Круглый стол: «Декриминализация передачи ВИЧ в семейных парах» для того, что бы усилить предъявленные аргументы, или найти новые для тех структур государственной власти, которые выступают против внесения поправки или предъявляют дополнительные требования, которые требуется проработать.

В своём выступлении Председатель Постоянной комиссии Палаты представителей по национальной безопасности Валентин Владимирович Михневич рассказал о том, какие ответы поступили в их Комиссию на запрос о внесении поправки в ст. 157.

Верховный Суд РБ – нужно проработать, что считать «поставлен в известность о наличии ВИЧ» (согласие письменно и с разъяснением).

Генеральная Прокуратура РБ – против.

МВД – нейтрально.

Следственный комитет – поддержал.

КГБ – нейтрально.

Министерство Юстиции РБ – поддержало.

Министерство здравоохранения РБ – поддерживает.

Основным предметом дискуссии встречи стали возможные альтернативные варианты поправке (версия предложенная изначально признана наиболее работоспособной), а также обсуждался важный вопрос – как может быть реализовано информирование партнёра о наличии ВИЧ так, чтобы это было подтверждено законодательно, и с другой стороны не стало каким-либо негативным фактором, для людей, живущих с ВИЧ.

Экспертную оценку поступающим предложениям на мероприятии делали – Бронников Андрей Сергеевич — заведующий отделом по подготовке законопроектов и взаимодействию с Постоянной комиссией Палаты представителей по национальной безопасности, а так же Дробков Антон Викторович – Главный советник Управления законодательства, национальной безопасности и правоохранительной деятельности Национального центра законодательства и правовых исследований Республики Беларусь.

В работе Круглого стола принимали участие представители государственных и международных организаций – Татьяна Фёдоровна Мигаль (Министерство Здравоохранения РБ), Вячеслав Иванович Граньков (ВОЗ), Сергеенко Светлана Владимировна (РЦГ иЭ), Елена Геральдовна Фисенко (РНПЦ МТ).

Выступающие экспертно информировали о достижениях современной медицины в сфере ВИЧ, как в стране, так и в мире, об эпидемиологической ситуации в стране, а так же об экспертном консенсусе в отношении научных данных о ВИЧ – инфекции в контексте уголовного права.

Представители нашей организации – Татьяна Журавская и Анатолий Лешенок выступили с докладом – «Обзор текущей ситуации применения ст. 157 УК РБ «Заражение ВИЧ». Об актуальности изменения ответственности за передачу ВИЧ»».

Доработанные предложения будут использованы во время Парламентских слушаний, которые состоятся уже буквально через 10 дней. На слушания будут приглашены представители Верховного Суда РБ, Генеральной Прокуратуры РБ, МВД , Следственного комитета, КГБ, Министерства Юстиции РБ, Министерство здравоохранения РБ, а также представитель РОО «Люди ПЛЮС».

Огромное спасибо всем принявшим участие а Круглом столе , ведущему – Александру Цехановичу, людям, которые решились прийти и сквозь слёзы рассказать истории своих страданий из-за действия ст. 157 УК РБ – Юля, Лена, Саша, Слава – огромное Вам СПАСИБО!

Beyond Blame 2018 Meeting Report and Evaluation Now Available

Beyond Blame 2018: Challenging HIV Criminalisation was a one-day meeting for activists, advocates, judges, lawyers, scientists, healthcare professionals and researchers working to end HIV criminalisation. Held at the historic De Balie in Amsterdam, immediately preceding the 22nd International AIDS Conference (AIDS 2018), the meeting was convened by HIV JUSTICE WORLDWIDE and supported by a grant from the Robert Carr Fund for Civil Society Networks.

The Meeting Report and Evaluation, written by the meeting’s lead rapporteur, Sally Cameron, Senior Policy Analyst for the HIV Justice Network, is now available for download here.

The meeting discussed progress on the global effort to combat the unjust use of the criminal law against people living with HIV, including practical opportunities for advocates working in different jurisdictions to share knowledge, collaborate, and energise the global fight against HIV criminalisation. The programme included keynote presentations, interactive panels, and more intimate workshops focusing on critical issues in the fight against HIV criminalisation around the world.

The more than 150 attendees at the meeting came from 30 countries covering most regions of the world including Africa, Asia and the Pacific, Eastern Europe and Central Asia, Latin and North America and Western Europe. Participation was extended to a global audience through livestreaming of the meeting on the HIV JUSTICE WORLDWIDE YouTube Channel, with interaction facilitated through the use of Twitter (using the hashtag #BeyondBlame2018) to ask questions of panellists and other speakers. See our Twitter Moments story here.

Following the meeting, participants were surveyed to gauge the event’s success. All participants rated Beyond Blame 2018 as good (6%), very good (37%), or excellent (57%), with 100% of participants saying that Beyond Blame 2018 had provided useful information and evidence they could use to advocate against HIV criminalisation.

A video recording of the entire meeting is available on HIV JUSTICE WORLDWIDE’s YouTube Chanel.

Key points

The experience of HIV criminalisation was a poor fit for individual’s actions and the consequences of those actions, particularly where actions included little or no possibility of transmission or where courts did not address scientific evidence
The consequences of prosecution for alleged HIV non-disclosure prior to sex are enormous and may include being ostracised, dealing with trauma and ongoing mental health issues, loss of social standing, financial instability, multiple barriers to participation in society, and sex offender registration
Survivors of the experience shared a sense of solidarity with others who had been through the system, and were determined to use their voices to create change so that others do not have to go through similar experiences
Becoming an advocate against HIV criminalisation is empowering and helps to make sense of individuals’ experiences

The movement against HIV criminalisation has grown significantly over the last decade but as the movement has grown, so has understanding of the breadth of the issue, with new cases and laws frequently uncovered in different parts of the world.
As well as stigma, there are multiple structural barriers in place enabling HIV criminalisation, including lags in getting modern science into courtrooms and incentives for police to bring cases for prosecution.
Community mobilisation is vital to successful advocacy. That work requires funding, education, and dialogue among those most affected to develop local agendas for change.
Criminalisation is complex and more work is required to build legal literacy of local communities.
Regional and global organisations play a vital role supporting local organisations to network and increase understanding and capacity for advocacy.
There have already been many advocacy successes, frequently the result of interagency collaboration and effective community mobilisation.

It is critical to frame advocacy against HIV criminalisation around justice, effective public health strategy and science rather than relying on science alone, as this more comprehensive framing is both more strategic and will help prevent injustices that may result from a reliance on science alone.
There have been lengthy delays between scientific and medical understanding of HIV being substantiated in large scale, authoritative trials, and that knowledge being accepted by courts.
Improving courts’ understanding that effective treatment radically reduces HIV transmission risk (galvanised in the grassroots ‘U=U’ movement) has the potential to dramatically decrease the number of prosecutions and convictions associated with HIV criminalisation and could lead to a modernisation of HIV-related laws.
Great care must be exercised when advocating a ‘U=U’ position at policy/law reform level, as doing so has the potential to deflect attention from issues of justice, particularly the need to repeal HIV-specific laws, stop the overly broad application of laws, and ensure that people who are not on treatment, cannot access viral load testing and/or who have a detectable viral load are not left behind.
Courts’ poor understanding of the effectiveness of modern antiretroviral therapies contributes to laws being inappropriately applied and people being convicted and sentenced to lengthy jail terms because of an exaggerated perception of ‘the harms’ caused by HIV.
HIV-related stigma remains a major impediment to the application of modern science into the courtroom, and a major issue undermining justice for people living with HIV throughout all legal systems.
HIV prevention, including individuals living with HIV accessing and remaining on treatment, is as much the responsibility of governments as individuals, and governments should ensure accessible, affordable and supportive health systems to enable everyone to access HIV prevention and treatment.
New education campaigns are required, bringing modern scientific understanding into community health education.
Continuing to work in silos is slowing our response to the HIV epidemic.

HIV criminalisation plays out in social contexts, with patriarchal social structures and gender discrimination intersecting with race, class, sexuality and other factors to exacerbate existing social inequalities.
Women’s efforts to seek protections from the criminal justice system are not always feminist; they often further the carceral state and promote criminalisation.
Interventions by some purporting to speak on behalf of women’s safety or HIV prevention efforts have delivered limited successes because social power, the structuring of laws and the ways laws are administered remain rooted in patriarchal power and structural violence.
Feminist approaches must recognise that women’s experiences differ according to a range of factors including race, class, types of work, immigration status, the experience of colonisation, and others.
For many women, HIV disclosure is not a safe option.
More work is needed to increase legal literacy and support for local women to develop and lead HIV criminalisation advocacy based on their local context.
When women affected by HIV have had the opportunity to consider the way that ‘protective’ HIV laws are likely to be applied, they have often concluded that those laws will be used against them and have taken action to advocate against the use of those laws.

At the end of the meeting, participants were asked to make some closing observations. These included:

Recognising that the event had allowed a variety of voices to be heard. In particular, autobiographical voices were the most authentic and most powerful: people speaking about their own experiences. This model which deferred to those communicating personal experiences, should be use when speaking to those in power.
Appreciating that there was enormous value in hearing concrete examples of how people are working to address HIV criminalisation, particularly when working intersectionally. It is important to capture these practical examples and make them available (noting practical examples will form the focus of the pending Advancing HIV Justice 3 report).
Understanding that U=U is based on a degree of privilege that is not shared by all people living with HIV. It is vital that accurate science informs HIV criminalisation as a means to reduce the number of people being prosecuted, however, people who are not on treatment are likely to become the new ‘scapegoats’. It is important that we take all opportunities to build bridges between U=U and anti-HIV criminalisation advocates, to create strong pathways to work together and support shared work.
Noting the importance of calling out racism and colonialism and their effects.
Observing that more effort is required to better understand and improve the role of police, health care providers and peer educators to limit HIV criminalisation.
Exploring innovative ways to advocate against HIV criminalisation, including community education work through the use of art, theatre, dance and other mechanisms.
Concluding that we must challenge ourselves going forward. That we must make the circle bigger. That next time we meet, we should challenge ourselves to bring someone who doesn’t agree with us. That we each find five people who aren’t on our side or don’t believe HIV criminalisation is a problem and we find ways and means (including funding) to bring them to the next Beyond Blame.

Russia: Lower House to debate bill, not supported by its Health Committee, that proposes mandatory treatment of people living with HIV

HIV-infected people could be treated forcibly (Google translation, for article in Russian, scroll down).

In the event that HIV-infected people pose a danger to others, they are suggestions to send them to compulsory hospitalization by court decision. The corresponding bill, introduced by the Legislative Assembly of the Altai Territory, will be considered by the State Duma on September 18.

In addition, the document grants the head of the medical organization, in which the HIV-infected citizen is on dispensary records, the right to apply to the court for a mandatory examination and treatment of this person.

The explanatory note to the document states that at present the duty to receive treatment is imputed to patients with tuberculosis and mental illnesses. However, such a requirement does not apply to HIV-infected people.

At the same time, the Government submitted a negative response to the document. “The analysis of foreign experience of normative legal regulation of diagnostics and treatment of HIV-infected persons shows that the legislation of the majority of foreign states does not contain provisions on compulsory placement in a hospital,” the document says.

The State Duma Committee on Health Protection did not support the initiative. “The social danger of tuberculosis is significantly higher than that of HIV infection,” the deputies concluded. Also, the parliamentarians reminded that the examination in medical organizations is carried out voluntarily if there is consent to this procedure by the patient or his legal representative. At the request of a citizen, a voluntary medical examination may be anonymous.

“Adoption of the bill may entail a violation of the rights of HIV-infected persons to anonymity of medical examination,” representatives of the State Duma Health Committee noted.

Published in Parliamentary Newspaper on September 18, 2018

——————————

ВИЧ-инфицированных предложено лечить принудительно

В том случае, если ВИЧ-инфицированные предоставляют опасность для окружающих, их предложено отправлять на принудительную госпитализацию по решению суда. Соответствующий законопроект, внесённый Заксобранием Алтайского края, Госдума планирует рассмотреть 18 сентября.

Кроме того, документ наделяет руководителя медицинской организации, в которой ВИЧ-инфицированный гражданин состоит на диспансерном учёте, правом обратиться в суд с иском об обязательном обследовании и лечении этого человека.

В пояснительной записке к документу указано, что в настоящее время обязанность проходить лечение вменена больным туберкулёзом и психическими заболеваниями. Однако на ВИЧ-инфицированных подобное требование не распространяется.

В то же время Правительство предоставило на документ отрицательный отзыв. «Анализ зарубежного опыта нормативного правового регулирования вопросов диагностики и лечения ВИЧ-инфицированных свидетельствует о том, что законодательство большинства иностранных государств не содержит положений о принудительном помещении в стационар», — указано в документе.

Не поддержал инициативу и Комитет Госдумы по охране здоровью. «Социальная опасность туберкулеза значительно выше, чем ВИЧ-инфекции», — указано в заключении депутатов. Также парламентарии напомнили, что освидетельствование в медицинских организациях проводится добровольно при наличии согласия на эту процедуру со стороны пациента или его законного представителя. По желанию гражданина добровольное медицинское освидетельствование может быть анонимным.

«Принятие законопроекта может повлечь нарушение прав ВИЧ-инфицированных лиц на анонимность медицинского освидетельствования», — отметили представители Комитета Госдумы по охране здоровья.

Argentina: Regional Parliament in Mendoza to vote on law reform including 30 days jail sentence for HIV transmission

Debate in Mendoza to send people who “transmit HIV”to prison (Google translation. For original article in Spanish, scroll below).

The provincial Chamber of Deputies deals with the reform of the Contraventional Code, where a penalty of up to 30 days in jail is assessed.

I am afraid that the police will take me prisoner because of my illness,” says Sergio Ramírez (27). He has HIV and is the national coordinator of the Argentine Network of Positive Young People and Adolescents (RAJAP), an organization with a presence in all the provinces that accompanies people with the AIDS virus.

The young Mendoza refers to the reform of the Contraventional Code that the Chamber of Deputies of Mendoza will vote on tomorrow -with half Senate sanction-, where his article 126 establishes up to 30 days in prison or the payment of a fine of $ 3000 for “the person that transmits a venereal or contagious disease “and an immediate hospitalization to do the medical studies.

The Code of Fouls in force in Mendoza is from 1965. Therefore, the current governor of the province, Alfredo Cornejo , presented in March a new code that, among its modifications, condemns social protesters with 3 days in jail and $ 9500 or 10 days of prison to the “rags” that do not have legal authorization, among others. “Tomorrow we will meet with different organizations from 8 o’clock to ask that the Contraventional Code not be sanctioned,” Ramírez said about the protest called for the start of the parliamentary session.

In addition, the president of the civil association Everyday Women, María Laura Chazarreta, today presented a letter in Deputies demanding the elimination of article 126 because the national AIDS law (23.798) prohibits compulsive HIV tests .

“To proceed, a complaint is made or a police officer intervenes. Then, it communicates with the judge of faults so that the contravencional process continues, explains Jorge Albarracín, deputy who presides over the commission of Legislation and Constitutional Affairs, to PROFILE . “If an amicable agreement is reached between the parties, the case is filed. But if you can not and the responsibility of the offender is proven, the sanctions begin, “says the radical legislator who, in response to the question of how these faults could be proven in the new Code, says that it will be the responsibility of the judge to carry out the investigation.

In this sense, Ramírez says that “most of the articles do not need proof and they leave it to the authority that is going to work the contravention, which is the same policeman who asks for bribes to the sex workers of the province.” ” This legislation only serves to criminalize a disease such as HIV, ” says Ramírez, who says that in Mendoza there are more than 4000 people carrying the virus.

Albarracín does not believe that HIV will be criminalized, because “the idea is to apply the regulations to people who, knowing the problem, infect another person”. However, it does not rule out the possibility of police abuses by article 126.

Finally, Albarracín says that “if the opposition gives the quorum , there will be a long session.” “But if we achieve our own quorum, the Code will be approved in a short time,” says the legislator of Cambiemos on the Contraventional Code that, if it receives modifications, will be treated again in the Senate.

Published in Perfil on September 13, 2018

—————————————————–

Debaten en Mendoza enviar a prisión a personas que “transmitan VIH”

La Cámara de Diputados provincial trata la reforma al Código Contravencial en donde se evalúa una penalización de hasta 30 días en la cárcel.

Tengo miedo que la policía me lleve preso por mi enfermedad”, dice Sergio Ramírez (27) que tiene HIV y es coordinador nacional de la Red Argentina de Jóvenes y Adolescentes Positivos (RAJAP), una organización con presencia en todas las provincias y que acompaña a las personas con el virus del Sida.

El joven mendocino se refiere a la reforma del Código Contravencional que la cámara de Diputados de Mendoza votará mañana –con media sanción del Senado-, donde su artículo 126 establece hasta 30 días de prisión o el pago de una multa de $3000 para “la persona que transmitiere una enfermedad venérea o contagiosa” y una hospitalización inmediata para hacer los estudios médicos.

El Código de Faltas vigente en Mendoza es del año 1965. Por eso, el actual gobernador de la provincia, Alfredo Cornejo, presentó en marzo un nuevo código que, entre sus modificaciones, condena las protestas sociales con 3 días de cárcel y $9500 o 10 días de prisión a los “trapitos” que no tengan autorización legal, entre otras. “Mañana vamos a reunirnos con diferentes organizaciones desde las 8 para pedir que no se sancione el Código Contravencional”, adelanta Ramírez sobre la protesta convocada para el comienzo de la sesión parlamentaria.

Además, la presidenta de la asociación civil Mujeres Cotidianas, María Laura Chazarreta, presentó hoy una carta en Diputados donde exige la eliminación delartículo 126 porque la ley nacional de sida (23.798) prohíbe los exámenes de VIH compulsivos.

“Para proceder se hace una denuncia o interviene un agente de policía. Luego, se comunica con el juez de faltas para que continúe el proceso contravencional”, le explica a PERFIL Jorge Albarracín, diputado que preside la comisión de Legislación y Asuntos Constitucional. “Si se llega a un acuerdo amistoso entre las partes, la causa se archiva. Pero si no se puede y se demuestra la responsabilidad del infractor, empiezan las sanciones”, detalla el legislador radical que, ante la pregunta sobre cómo podrían probarse estas faltas al nuevo Código, dice que será competencia del juez que lleve adelante la investigación.

En este sentido, Ramírez dice que “la mayoría de los artículos no necesitan pruebas y lo dejan librado a la autoridad que va a labrar la contravención, que es la misma policía que le pide coimas a las trabajadoras sexuales de la provincia”. “Esta legislación solo sirve para criminalizar una enfermedad como el VIH”, sostiene Ramírez que cuenta que en Mendoza hay más de 4000 personas portadoras del virus.

Albarracín no cree que se vaya a criminalizar al VIH, porque “la idea es aplicar la normativa a las personas que, conociendo el problema, contagian a otro”. Sin embargo, no descarta que se produzcan abusos policiales por el artículo 126.

Por último, Albarracín adelanta que “si la oposición da el quorum, habrá una sesión larga”. “Pero si logramos quorum propio, el Código estará aprobado en poco tiempo”, afirma el legislador de Cambiemos sobre el Código Contravencional que, si recibe modificaciones, volverá a ser tratado en el Senado.

China: Members of National People's Congress call for laws to punish people living with HIV for HIV non-disclosure

NPC Members Call For Criminalization Of HIV Non-Disclosure

Several members of China’s National People’s Congress are advising the nation’s law-makers to make it a legal obligation for HIV-positive people to disclose their status under certain circumstances.

ThePaper.cn reports (in Chinese) that on August 30, in an internal congress meeting about how to prevent and control infectious diseases across the country, some members called for laws to punish people who are HIV positive but refuse to inform others of their illness, because, “when there is a conflict between an individual’s right to privacy and public interest, the latter always comes first.”

Citing a recent report that shows HIV infection rates are on a steady rise in China and in most cases the virus is transmitted through unsafe sex, some attendees expressed profound concerns about the laws being called for.

“Our country’s protection of individual privacy is very comprehensive. But because AIDS can be fatal, for HIV-positive people, there should be obligations and responsibilities for them to disclose their status on certain occasions,” said Liu Yasheng 刘亚声, an NPC member and doctor from Inner Mongolia. To give an example, Liu said that people with HIV should be candid about their illness at medical institutes in order to reduce the risk of transmission through medical practices.

In agreement with Liu, Lei Dongzhu 雷冬竹, dean at a hospital in Hunan Province, said that in the first half of this year, 16 students at a university in Inner Mongolia were diagnosed with HIV, and the majority of them were infected through unprotected sex with someone of same gender. “We put too much emphasis on protecting AID patients’ privacy, but how to draw a fine line between privacy and public interest is something worth consideration,” Lei argued.

Lawmakers have not made clear what they consider to be “certain occasions,” or how severe they think punishments should be.

According to current regulations on AIDS prevention and treatment, HIV-positive people in China are required to disclose their status to sexual partners and doctors. But at the same time, to prevent discrimination against people living with HIV, their carrier status cannot be disclosed without consent. It’s also stipulated that a person who is HIV positive and knowingly infects others with the virus could be found criminally liable, though such prosecutions are very rare.

Last year, a young man in Nantong, Jiangsu Province, filed a lawsuit against a hospital which gave his then-fiancée a false negative HIV test result during their premarital health check and demanded a compensation of 120,000 yuan ($18,000). The court ruled in favor of the defendant, saying that was no direct connection between his marriage decision and the mistake of the hospital.

Published in SupChina on September 4, 2018

Nepal: New law introduces jail sentences and fines for HIV and hepatitis transmission

Kathmandu, August 15

The Civil Code Act and Criminal Code Act, which intend to herald sweeping reforms in Nepal’s legal system, will come into force on Friday.

These two codes will govern the conduct of everybody – rich and poor, alike – replacing the 55-year-old General Code.

Lawmaker Radhe Shyam Adhikari, who was involved in drafting the two laws, said they had incorporated modern concepts and principles of laws and had also accepted extra territorial jurisdiction on some issues.

“These laws are as important as the constitution and in some cases even more than the constitution because they touch upon the lives of every citizen,” he added.

The civil code has incorporated provisions of private intentional law for the first time stating, among other things, that if a divorce between Nepali citizens and between a Nepali citizen and a foreigner takes place in a foreign country, then it can get legal validity in Nepal if the divorce process is based on the laws of that particular country.

It gives a divorced woman the right to use the property she will receive from her former husband even if she remarries, which is not the case under the existing law. The new law also allows a woman the right to use her father’s surname, the surname of her mother or husband or both surnames.

It has provisions relating to usufruct, whereby a person can give his/her property to somebody who can use it as his/her own property but cannot change the substance of the property without the consent of the owner.

The new law stipulates that an owner of an animal will be held responsible if the animal inflicts harm to others.

It gives extraterritorial jurisdiction to courts whereby if a crime is committed against a ship registered in Nepal then the courts can try the accused if s/he is found within Nepal.

It stipulates that the punishment of offenders who are sentenced to jail for one year or less can be suspended if the court deems it appropriate to do so.

The new penal code sets the duration of life term up to 25 years.

There is provision of plea bargain — a theory widely used in the American criminal justice system — as a general rule for the first time in Nepal’s criminal justice system. An accused can get punishment waiver of up to 50 per cent if s/he confesses to her/his crimes and also spills the beans on other offenders or the main offender or the organised group involved in the crime.

The court will conduct hearing on the quantum of punishment within a month after the crime is determined. Penal code also stipulates that aggravating and mitigating circumstances/factors should be taken into account in sentencing.

Punishments

Life term for aggravated murder (such as killing somebody after hijacking or exploding a plane), genocide, poisoning death, murder and aggravated rape and genocide
Jail sentence not exceeding seven years and a fine not exceeding Rs 70,000 for raising arms against a friendly country of Nepal or issuing a war threat, or making attempts of war or rebellion against a friendly country
Jail term not exceeding 10 years and a fine not exceeding Rs 100,000 for transmitting HIV and Hepatitis B to anybody
Jail term not exceeding five years and a fine not exceeding Rs 50,000 for producing, selling and exporting adulterated or substandard food and beverage
Jail term not exceeding three months and a fine not exceeding Rs 5,000 for scribbling or writing on banknotes
Jail term up to three months and a fine up to Rs 5,000 for animal and bird cruelty

Published in the Himalayan Times on August 15, 2018

Russia: Russian Human Rights Council favors criminal punishment over education for HIV denialism, thought to be affecting minors' HIV care

Russian Human Rights Council proposes criminal penalty for HIV denialism

MOSCOW, August 7 (RAPSI) – Russia’s Presidential Council for Human Rights has recommended the government to consider imposition of criminal punishment for propaganda of HIV denialism, a statement released on the advisory body’s website reads.

According to the Human Rights Council, HIV denialism is one of the main problems hindering enhancement of the disease control efficiency and primarily affecting minors.

Other problems in this field include defects in HIV laboratory tests conducted in unspecialized organizations, faults in statistical recording and absence of regulation of a work permit procedure for health care workers in the event of HI virus detection, the statement reads.

Human rights advocates recommended the Health Ministry to adopt corresponding legislation for the solution of these issues.

Published in RAPSI on August

Fiji: National Substance Abuse Advisory Council training of trainers workshop advises participants that having sex without disclosing is a criminal act

KNOWINGLY SPREADING HIV ‘A CRIME’

Anyone who has the Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) and knowingly transmits it to a sexual partner without informing them is committing a crime.

If someone is found guilty of the crime in a court of law that person is liable for a fine or a jail term not exceeding two years.

This was highlighted by Northern Reproductive Health Clinic acting senior medical officer Doctor Waisale Turuva during a workshop in Labasa.

The four-day Ministry of Education National Substance Abuse Advisory Council training of trainers’ workshop ended at the Kshatriya Hall in Labasa yesterday.

There were 41 participants, who were teachers from Bua and Macuata provinces.

“We counsel our patients when they go out of the office with medication to inform their partner immediately,” Dr Turuva said.

“So if they are having sex with their mutual partner without their partner knowing then it becomes a criminal act according to the HIV/AIDS Decree 2011.

“There are seven parts in the decree and according to part six ‘the deliberate or attempted infection of a person by a person who knows he or she carries HIV is an offence under this decree.

“It is very important to report about a person committing such an offence and at the same time it is very important that you know it is factual. From this workshop I expect teachers to be well informed and help out people who need help.”

Edited by Epineri Vula

Published in Fiji Sun online on August 3, 2018

US: North Carolina's HIV criminalisation reform protects people who are undetectable but leaves others vulnerable

In North Carolina, an HIV Criminalization Reform Bill Passed, but People Who Aren’t ‘Undetectable’ Remain at Risk

Until recently, North Carolina was one of two-dozen states that directly criminalize HIV exposure, but in a historic move this year, the state updated its HIV control measures to conform with the modern understanding of transmission risk.

North Carolina’s unique journey to HIV criminalization reform might serve as a roadmap for other advocates hoping to modernize their own state’s laws. But it hasn’t been without controversy, with some advocates taking issue with North Carolina’s new carve-out for HIV-positive people who have achieved viral suppression.

Thanks to antiretroviral treatment, people who take a pill every day are no longer capable of transmitting the virus to others, a scientific framework called “undetectable equals untransmittable” or “U=U.” North Carolina’s new rule protects that population completely, but it leaves others vulnerable to legal ramifications.

That’s a problem, some argue, because it might deepen racial disparities that already exist in prison sentences and in viral suppression. According to the Prison Policy Initiative, black North Carolinians make up only 22% of the state’s population yet account for 55% of all people in state prisons and local jails; whites comprise 65% of the state’s population but only 36% of those in state prisons or jails. When it comes to viral suppression, in North Carolina, 62% of all people with HIV are virally suppressed. But 66% of whites living with HIV in the state are undetectable, compared with 61% of blacks and 51% of Latinx people.

“These concerns are valid and need to be addressed,” says Christina Adeleke, communications and development coordinator with North Carolina AIDS Action Network (NCAAN). But addressing these “bigger system issues … is a conversation that’s way bigger than HIV criminalization.”

Adeleke and her colleagues at NCAAN were instrumental in bringing about North Carolina’s reform and presented their process for advocating for reform at the 2018 HIV Is Not a Crime Training Academy in Indianapolis. If it were up to NCAAN’s executive director Lee Storrow, he would repeal HIV criminalization laws outright. But Storrow and Adeleke both emphasize that they are working in a Southern state, where it’s tough to move the needle on HIV criminalization reform.

“We wanted to advance it as far forward as we had the capacity to, without going so far that we wouldn’t achieve anything,” explains Storrow.

“We had to be very mindful to be in lockstep with the state,” Adeleke adds. “Where we landed was as far as we could go at this point.”

According to Storrow, North Carolina now has the most progressive HIV criminal law in the South. He argues that decriminalizing behaviors for people who have achieved viral suppression is an important first step. Additionally, North Carolina’s reform contained other important changes, eliminating stigmatizing words, such as “infected” and “retarded,” and conforming with new federal rules around HIV-positive organ donation.

Now, NCAAN is hoping that North Carolina’s modernized rules will encourage people who are living in the shadows to seek treatment, knowing that they’ll be protected from prosecution if they’re able to take their medications every day.

NCAAN’S Journey

Dozens of HIV criminalization laws were passed in the 1990s and 2000s when fear of the epidemic was at an all-time high. But, today, some lawmakers are rethinking these decades-old rules in the wake of mounting evidence that they’re based on outdated science. California recently modernized its law to reduce HIV transmission from a felony to a misdemeanor — a reform advocates consider a best-case scenario. Meanwhile, other states have moved in a different direction, broadening their HIV criminalization laws to include hepatitis C and other sexually transmitted infections.

But, unlike other states, North Carolina’s HIV criminalization rules are not baked into the legal code. Instead, the rules exist as part of the state’s public health control measures, under the purview of the Commission for Public Health.

In 2017, those control measures were up for review, and NCAAN saw an opportunity to finally modernize the state’s criminalization rules. Initially, state officials only wanted to reform the control measures to include the federal HIV Organ Policy Equity Act (HOPE Act), which legalizes organ donation between HIV-positive people, said Storrow.

However, NCAAN advocated for broader reforms, arguing that the state should decriminalize condomless sex between HIV-positive couples and mixed-status couples who use pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP).

Moreover, NCAAN fought to eliminate non-disclosure prosecutions for HIV-positive people who are virally suppressed, based on the contemporary understanding that effective treatment prevents people with HIV from passing the virus to others.

It took months of meetings and many strained conversations to convince some state officials that HIV criminalization rules should be modernized. In part, that’s because many people still believe that HIV is a highly contagious death sentence.

People assume that if you are living with HIV, you are in a constant state of being able to transmit HIV to other people,” says Adeleke. “In reality, if you are on medication and in treatment and virally suppressed, it is physically not possible to do that. You can live a normal life.”

Eventually, a compromise took shape, and the new, modernized rule took effect in January 2018. Storrow says the changes made are meaningful to many North Carolinians, especially couples who are on treatment and no longer need to fear prosecution. But he also called the changes “incomplete,” asserting that there’s a long way to go in the effort to completely decriminalize HIV in his state.

Adeleke hopes North Carolina’s journey can be a model for other Southern states that must balance the desire for radical reform against the backdrop of conservative-leaning leadership.

Adeleke recommends that other advocates working in the South familiarize themselves with specific legislation and public health laws in their own states.

“See who specifically is in charge of making certain decisions; you may find you have allies waiting in certain parts of government who can help you move this along,” she adds.

In North Carolina, the majority of people on the HIV reform task force were people living with HIV, Adeleke says.

“The process was inspiring because it showed how a community can take ownership of a particular topic that’s really affected them,” she says. “To be able to achieve the result we did was exciting.

Sony Salzman is a freelance journalist reporting on health care and medicine, who has won awards in both narrative writing and radio journalism. Follow Salzman on Twitter: @sonysalz.

Published in the Body on June 25, 2018

US: Challenge to constitutionality of Arkansas disclosure law rejected

HIV-disclosure rule lawful, Pulaski County judge rules

Pulaski County Circuit Judge Leon Johnson on Friday rejected a challenge to the Arkansas law that requires anyone who has tested HIV-positive to disclose that finding to any sex partners before intimacy.

“I don’t think the statute is unconstitutional,” the judge said, concluding a two-hour hearing that featured testimony from Dr. Nathaniel Smith, head of the state Department of Health, and Dr. Jon Allen, also with the department, who regularly lectures on treatment of the human immunodeficiency virus.

State attorneys Michael Cantrell and Monty Baugh, representing Attorney General Leslie Rutledge, defended the law.

Medical advances have dramatically reduced the chances that someone with HIV and taking the required medication will infect a sex partner, but there is still a danger, the judge said.

Knowingly exposing someone to the virus that causes AIDS is a Class A felony, like attempted murder, with a maximum sentence of 30 years in prison.

Attorney Cheryl Maples, the Heber Springs lawyer who launched the lawsuit that overturned Arkansas’ ban on gay marriage, had challenged the constitutionality of Arkansas Code 5-14-123 on behalf of a client, 24-year-old Sanjay Johnson.

The Little Rock man, arrested on the charge in August 2016 by North Little Rock police, is scheduled to stand trial in July.

HIV is the only communicable disease that has been criminalized this way, despite the prevalence of other infectious diseases that are much more easily transmittable, Maples told the judge. She said the law was passed in 1989 to calm widespread fears when very little was known about AIDS. But HIV treatment has improved so dramatically that it has rendered the law unnecessary, she said.

The three-medication treatment regime developed over the past 20 years renders the virus medically undetectable in a patient’s bloodstream, Maples told the judge. The scientific consensus now is that the medication reduces the risk of exposure to virtually zero, she said.

If the law ever had a meaningful purpose, it lapsed a long time ago, she said. Now all it does is single out one group for unfair treatment by potentially criminalizing every sexual encounter, Maples said.

“It is clearly punishment for acquiring the disease and not for passing it along,” she told the judge.

Metro on 06/09/2018

Published in Arkansas online on June 9, 2018