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

Livestream: HIV IS NOT A CRIME III National Training Academy: Plenary 1b – North Carolina and State Legislators (HJN, 2018)

HIV IS NOT A CRIME III National Training Academy Live from the Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis, 4 June 2018 Running order (click on the time cues to jump there):

Live stream hosted by Mark S King www.myfabulousdisease.com

This live stream was brought to you by HIV Justice Network

Directed and produced by Nicholas Feustel

1) Pre-show with Mark S King and guests 00:06

2) Part 1: North Carolina 04:28

3) Intermission show 41:09

4) Part 2: State legislators 43:45

5) After show 1:20:47

Part 1: Modernizing North Carolina’s HIV Criminal Law Facilitated by Christina Adeleke North Carolina AIDS Action Network NORTH CAROLINA With Kara McGee Duke University NORTH CAROLINA Billy Willis WECAHN NORTH CAROLINA Terl Gleason AIDS Healthcare Foundation NORTH CAROLINA Lee Storrow North Carolina AIDS Action Network NORTH CAROLINA Q&A facilitated by Allison Nichol SERO Project WASHINGTON DC

Part 2: Behind the Scenes with State Legislators Facilitated by Sean Strub SERO Project PENNSYLVANIA With State Rep. John McCrostie State Representative IDAHO State Rep. Jon Hoadley State Representative MICHIGAN Jeanette Mott Empower Missouri MISSOURI

Side show interviews with Venita Ray Southern AIDS Coalition TEXAS and Edwin J Bernard HIV Justice Network UK

Livestream: HIV IS NOT A CRIME III National Training Academy: Plenary 1a – Survivors and California (HJN, 2018)

HIV IS NOT A CRIME III National Training Academy Live from the Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis, 4 June 2018

Live stream hosted by Mark S King www.myfabulousdisease.com

This live stream was brought to you by HIV Justice Network

Directed and produced by Nicholas Feustel

Running order (click on the time cues to jump there):

1) Pre-show with Mark S. King and guests 00:28

2) Introduction 08:36

3) Part 1: Survivors’ Panel 09:39

4) Intermission show 1:11:09

5) Part 2: Victory in California 1:13:14

6) After show 2:02:20

Introduction by Allison Nichol SERO Project WASHINGTON DC

Part 1: Criminalization Survivors’ Panel Facilitated by Robert Suttle SERO Projekt NEW YORK With Ariel Sabillon Student FLORIDA Monique Howell HIV criminalization survivor SOUTH CAROLINA Ken Pinkela SERO Project NEW YORK Kerry Thomas SERO Project IDAHO

Part 2: Forging the Path to Victory in California Facilitated by Naina Khanna Positive Women’s Network – USA CALIFORNIA With Craig Pulsipher APLA CALIFORNIA Arneta Rogers Positive Women’s Network – USA CALIFORNIA Scott Scholtes Lambda Legal ILLINOIS

Side show interviews with Edwin J Bernard HIV Justice Network UK and Venita Ray Southern AIDS Coalition TEXAS 

Livestream: HIV IS NOT A CRIME III National Training Academy: Opening Session (HJN, 2018)

Live from the Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis, 3 June 2018

Live stream hosted by Mark S King www.myfabulousdisease.com

This live stream was brought to you by HIV Justice Network

Directed and produced by Nicholas Feustel

Running order (click on the time cues to jump there):

1) Pre-show with Mark S King and guests 00:09

2) Welcome 09:29 3) Intermission show 1:05:36

4) Thank you’s 1:09:25

5) Celebrating victories 1:11:40

6) After show 2:10:43

Facilitated by Tami Taught SERO Project IOWA With Melissa Williams Director of the Native American Indian Affairs and Commission INDIANA Carrie Foote HIV Modernization Movement INDIANA Mark Hughes HIV Modernization Movement INDIANA Sean Strub SERO Project PENNSYLVANIA Naina Khanna Positive Women’s Network – USA CALIFORNIA Waheedah Shabazz-El Positive Women’s Network – USA PENNSYLVANIA Arneta Rogers Positive Women’s Network – USA CALIFORNIA Stacy Jennings BULI participant SOUTH CAROLINA Cindy Stine SERO Project PENNSYLVANIA Robert Suttle SERO Project NEW YORK Edwin J Bernard HIV Justice Network UK Ken Pinkela SERO Project NEW YORK

Chile: While Chilean parliament considers HIV criminalisation bill, newspaper takes a closer look at the arguments

Penalisation of HIV / AIDS transmission: The countries that condemn and the consequences using the law to criminalise HIV (Google translate, for original article in Spanish, scroll down)

The explosive increase of cases of HIV AIDS in Chile between 2007 and 2017 led the Ministry of Health to activate alarms, implementing a multiministerial action plan that seeks to curb the situation.

According to the figures, in a decade 5,816 people would have been infected in Chile.

The situation has also led to the presentation of a series of proposals in Parliament such as the PPD-PRO bench that seeks to establish compulsory sex education in secondary education.

However, one of the most controversial has to do with penalizing transmission, as stated out by the bill introduced by UDI deputies Juan Antonio Coloma and Sergio Gahona.

The measure seeks to apply a minimum to medium prison sentence to those who “knowingly carry the HIV virus and who is in the period can effectively transmit, transmit or endanger life or health through sexual relations to another person without their knowledge or consent. “

IS IT PENALISED IN THE REST OF THE WORLD? 

Onusida figures state that by 2016, a total of 36.7 million people were living with HIV, while 20.9 million were receiving antiretroviral treatment. Meanwhile, in that same year, 1.8 million people were infected worldwide.

Intentional transmission is the only case in which the Joint United Nations Program on HIV / AIDS (UNAIDS) considers it pertinent to apply criminal legislation to people who transmit HIV infection or expose others to the virus.

The agency’s report, which dates from 2007, states that “in other cases, legislators, prosecutors and judges should reject the application of criminal law.”

In addition, it urges States to avoid legislation specifically on HIV, but to apply general criminal law in cases of intentional transmission. In addition, it calls for a clear definition of “intentional transmission,” and to ensure that “the application of general legislation to the transmission of HIV is consistent with its international obligations in the area of Human Rights.

AND IN CASE OF VIOLATION? 

In the case of rape resulting in HIV infection, UNAIDS argues that the sentence could take into account “the aggressor’s serostatus as a legitimate aggravating circumstance only if the person knew that she was HIV-positive at the time of committing the crime”.

WHAT MEASURES ARE PROPOSED INSTEAD OF PENALIZING TRANSMISSION? 

UNAIDS argues that there are more effective measures that penalize contagion, such as strengthening and enforcing laws against rape – inside and outside of marriage – and other forms of violence against women and children; improve the effectiveness of the criminal justice system to investigate and prosecute crimes against women and children; support the equality and economic independence of women.

INTENTIONALITY OF TRANSMISSION? 

The report argues that there are few cases of intentional transmission of HIV, contrary to what the UDI parliamentarians propose, where they state in the bill that “there are many cases in which a person, out of simple amusement or revenge, decides to infect the virus. AIDS to other people and thereby generate immeasurable harm to people and their families, beyond their personal responsibilities. “

From the perspective of the international organisation, “this type of malicious acts are rare in the context of HIV and the available data show that most people living with HIV and knowing their HIV status take the necessary measures to prevent transmission of the virus to the others “.

They also argue that people who do not have access to voluntary counselling and testing, or because they fear to be tested because of the negative consequences that may result from a positive diagnosis, such as discrimination or violence, in such cases, people can transmit HIV without knowing their HIV status and should not face criminal proceedings. “

DIFFICULTY IN FINDING WHO TRANSMITTED TO WHO 

“It is often difficult to establish who transmitted HIV to whom (especially when both parties have had more than one sexual partner) and may depend on only one testimony, so people accused of HIV transmission may be found guilty of error, “says Onusida.

COUNTRIES WHERE THERE IS PENALISATION 

There is a large number of countries where the transmission of HIV is criminalized, including the United States, Uganda, Spain, Mexico, except San Luis Potosi and Aguascalientes, in all the penal codes of the states is stipulated the crime of danger of contagion.

A ranking of countries where there is criminaliSation of the disease dating from 2008, puts first Malta, then Bermuda and New Zealand.

In dozens of countries, various organizations have tried to stop the criminalization of HIV / AIDS, especially considering that this goes against the fight for the disease, because people fear to make their contagion visible or examined. (http://www.24horas.cl)

Published in Por El Ojo De La Cerradura on May 26, 2018

———————————————————–

¿Penalizar el contagio del VIH/SIDA?: Los países que condenan y las consecuencias de poner la enfermedad bajo la ley

El aumento explosivo de casos de VIH sida en Chile entre 2007 y 2017 llevó al Ministerio de Salud a activar las alarmas, implementando un plan de acción multiministerial que busca poner freno a la situación.

Según las cifras, en una década 5.816 personas se habrían contagiado en Chile.

La situación también ha derivado en la presentación de una serie de propuestas en el Parlamento como la de la bancada PPD-PRO que busca que establezca la educación sexual obligatoria en la enseñanza media.

Sin embargo, uno de los que más ha causado controversia dice relación con penalizar el contagio, tal como señala el proyecto de ley ingresado por los diputados UDI Juan Antonio Coloma y Sergio Gahona.

La medida busca que se aplique una condena de presidio menor en grado mínimo a medio a quienes “a sabiendas de ser portador del virus del VIH y que se encuentra en el período que puede efectivamente transmitirlo, contagiare o pusiere en peligro la vida o salud mediante relaciones sexuales a otra persona sin contar con su conocimiento o anuencia”.

¿ES PENALIZADO EN EL RESTO DEL MUNDO?

Las cifras de Onusida sostienen que al 2016, un total de 36,7 millones de personas viven con VIH, mientras que 20,9 millones se encuentran con tratamiento antirretrovírico. En tanto, en ese mismo año, 1,8 millones de personas se contagiaron a nivel mundial.

La transmisión intencionada es el único caso en que el Programa Conjunto de las Naciones Unidas sobre el VIH Sida (Onusida) considera pertinente aplicar la legislación penal a personas que transmiten la infección por VIH o exponen a otros al virus.

El informe del organismo, que data de 2007, sostiene que “en otros casos, legisladores, fiscales y jueces deberían rechazar la aplicación de derecho penal”.

Además, insta a los Estados a evitar legislar específicamente sobre el VIH, sino que aplicar el derecho penal general en casos de transmisión intencionada. Además, llama a definir claramente la “transmisión intencionada”, y asegurar que “la aplicación de la legislación general a la transmisión del VIH sea coherente con sus obligaciones internacionales en materia de Derechos Humanos.

¿Y EN CASO DE VIOLACIÓN?

En caso de violación con resultado de contagio de VIH, Onusida sostiene que la sentencia pueda tener en cuenta “el estado serológico del agresor como legítimo agravante sólo si la persona sabía que era VIH-Positiva al momento de cometer el delito”.

¿QUÉ MEDIDAS SE PROPONEN EN LUGAR DE PENALIZAR EL CONTAGIO?

Onusida sostiene que existen medidas más efectivas que penalizar el contagio, como fortalecer y hacer cumplir las leyes contra la violación -dentro y fuera del matrimonio- y otras formas de violencia contra las mujeres y niños; mejorar la eficacia del sistema penal para indagar y procesar delitos contra mujeres y niños; apoyar la igualdad e independencia económica de las mujeres.

 

¿INTENCIONALIDAD EN EL CONTAGIO?

El informe sostiene que son escasos los casos de transmisión intencionada de VIH, contrariando lo que proponen los parlamentarios UDI, donde señalan en el proyecto de ley que “no son pocos los casos en que una persona por simple diversión o venganza decide contagiar del virus del SIDA a otras personas y con ello generar un daño inconmensurable a personas y sus familias, más allá de sus responsabilidades personales”.

Desde la mirada del organismo internacional, “este tipo de actos dolosos son raros en el contexto del VIH y los datos disponibles demuestran que la mayor parte de las personas que viven con el VIH y conocen su estado serológico toman las medidas necesarias para prevenir la transmisión del virus a las demás”.

También sostienen que las personas que no tienen acceso a asesoramiento y pruebas voluntarias, “o porque temen someterse a la prueba debido a las consecuencias negativas que puedan derivarse de un diagnóstico positivo, tales como discriminación o violencia, en tales casos, las personas transmiten sin saber el VIH y no deben enfrentarse a un proceso penal”.

DIFICULTAD EN ENCONTRAR A LA PERSONA TRANSMISORA

“A menudo es difícil establecer quién transmite el VIH a quién (especialmente cuando ambas partes han tenido más de una pareja sexual) y tal vez dependa sólo de un testimonio. Por lo tanto, las personas acusadas de transmisión del VIH pueden se declaradas culpables por error”, sostiene Onusida.

PAÍSES DONDE EXISTE PENALIZACIÓN

Existe una gran cantidad de países donde la transmisión del VIH está penalizada, entre los que se encuentra  Estados Unidos, Uganda, España, México, salvo San Luis Potosí y Aguascalientes, en todos los códigos penales de los estados está estipulado el delito de peligro de contagio.

Un ranking de los países donde existe criminalización de la enfermedad que data de 2008, pone en primer lugar a Malta, luego Bermuda y Nueva Zelanda.

En decenas de países, diversas organizaciones han intentado detener la criminalización del VIH/SIDA, especialmente por considerar que esto atenta contra la lucha para la enfermedad, debido a que las personas temen visibilizar su contagio o examinarse. (http://www.24horas.cl)