Russia: Government to examine possibility of removing HIV-specific criminal law and broadening prosecutions to all serious communicable diseases under general ‘bodily harm’ laws

The Russian government is considering removing Article 122 (Infection with Human Immuno-deficiency Virus) from the Criminal Code, according to an article published earlier this month on the RBC website.

Deputy Prime Minister Olga Golodets has instructed a number of ministries to work together to examine whether it is possible to eliminate this HIV-specific criminal law.

The Ministry of Justice, Ministry of Health, Ministry of Internal Affairs, the Federal Service, Prosecutor General’s Office, the Supreme Court and the Institute of Legislation and Comparative Law under the Government have been given a deadline of October 1, 2017.

Article 122. Infection with Human Immuno-deficiency Virus (HIV)

1. Posing a conscious threat to infect a person with HIV

Shall be punishable by restraint of liberty for a term of up to 

three years, or by compulsory labour for a term of up to one year,

or by arrest for a term of up to six months, or by deprivation of

liberty for a term of up to one year.

2. Infection of another person with HIV by a person who knew that 

he had such disease, Shall be punishable by deprivation of liberty

for a term of up to five years.

Federal Law No. 14-FZ of February 29, 2012 amended part 3 of

Article 122 of this Code

3. The act described in the second part of this Article, 

committed against two or more persons, or against an obvious juvenile,

Shall be punishable by deprivation of liberty for a term of up to

eight years with deprivation of the right to hold definite offices

and to engage in definite activities for a term of up to ten years

or without such.

4. Infection of another person with HIV through the improper

discharge by a person of his professional duties, shall be punishable

by compulsory labour for a term of up to five years accompanied by

deprivation of the right to hold specified offices or to engage in

specified activities for a term of up to three years or without

such or by deprivation of liberty for a term of up to five years

accompanied by deprivation of the right to hold specified offices

or to engage in specified activities for a term of up to three years.

Note: A person who has committed the deeds provided for by

Parts One and Two of this Article shall be released from criminal

liability if the other person subjected to the risk of being

infected, or infected, with HIV was warned in due time that

the former had such disease and agreed of his own free will to

commit the actions posing the risk of infection.

During their deliberations, the ministries will consider instead applying Articles 111, 112, 115 of the Criminal Code relating to the intentional infliction of ‘serious’, ‘average’ or ‘light’ bodily harm, respectively.

(Scroll to the bottom of the page for the full text of these Articles.)

Opportunities and threats

Without clear prosecutorial guidelines, however, it is possible that the punishment for alleged HIV transmission could be much more harsh under these general laws (from up to 5 years to up to 10 years) than under the present HIV-specific statute.

However, this may also be an opportunity to decriminalise potential or perceived HIV exposure without prior disclosure of known HIV-positive status, since no bodily harm has been inflicted.

Nevertheless, the article notes that applying general laws could also allow for prosecutions relating to other serious and dangerous communicable diseases, which has the potential to greatly expand the use of the criminal law against a number of vulnerable populations in Russia that are disproportionately impacted by, for example, hepatitis and TB.

The proposal to delete the article on HIV infection was advanced by lawyer Konstantin Dobrynin during a meeting on 3 February of the Council of the Government of guardianship in the social sphere of which he is a board member. Having such a law is parcularly discriminatory for patients with HIV, he said. “This article appeared in the legislation in 1996, since then has passed 21 years, the world has moved forward,” said Dobrynin.

Dobrynin stressed that the law usually does not consider as a defence the use of condoms and whether the patient is on treatment, noting that condom use and antiretroviral treatement creates a “negligible” probability of infection. “We propose to recognize the article about HIV infection as invalid and to register a new article for the infection of all kinds of infectious diseases, the list of which is to be approved by the State,” summarized Dobrynin.

[However], the proposal to create a separate article for all infectious diseases was not reflected in Golodets’ order.

During the 30-month period: April 2013 to October 2015, we found that Russia had the highest number of HIV-related cirminal cases in the world during this period (at least 115), followed by the United States.

The RBC article states that there were 19 convictions under Article 122 in the first half of 2016 and 45 in 2015. This means that only some of the cases we highlight on our site are reported in the news.

Tipping point

It is widely believed that Russia currently faces a tipping point in how it tackles its growing HIV epidemic.

The high level discussion on removing Russia’s HIV-specific criminal law is taking place at the same time as a number of other policy decisions relating to HIV, as Russia formulates its Action Plan to implement its Strategy to Combat the Spread of HIV.

A number of ministries are also considering the issue of entry, stay and residence restrictions on foreign-born residents of Russia who are living with HIV.

In 2015, the Russian Constitutional Court halted the deportation of foreigners living with HIV if they had family and/or immediate relatives living in Russia. In January 2017, the Ministry of Health proposed to further relax entry, stay and residency restrictions on foreigners with HIV but this proposal was blocked by the Ministry of the Interior and Ministry of Economic Development.

Since then, Deputy Prime Minister Olga Golodets has instructed these ministries to work together on this issue as well as to study how to provide medical care for foreign citizens of Russia living with HIV.

Another positive sign is that the Government recently rejected a law – which was meant to be enforced on January 1st 2017 – to mandate registration of all people with diagnosed HIV into a central database, primarily due to concerns that this would drive undiagnosed individiduals underground.

Agencies and organizations spoke out against the introduction of the registry for the HIV-infected and concluded that such a measure will not contribute to “the creation of a trust, a partnership that must be established between providers and patients,” the document stated.

Also, it will cancel the rule on anonymity of HIV testing, the government stressed. This can significantly reduce the number of people willing to take such a test.

The full text of Articles 111, 112 and 115 in English

from http://www.legislationline.org/documents/section/criminal-codes/country/7

Article 111. Intentional Infliction of a Grave Injury

1. Intentional infliction of a grave injury, which is hazardous for

human life or which has involved the loss of sight, speech, hearing,

or any organ or the loss of the organ's functions, or which has

expressed itself in the indelible disfiguring of a human face,

and also infliction of other harm which is dangerous to human life

or which has involved an injury to a person's health, joined with

considerable permanent loss of general ability to work by not less

then one third or by the full loss of an occupational capacity for

work, which capacity was evident to the guilty person, or which has

involved the interruption of pregnancy, mental derangement, or the

victim's falling ill to drug addiction or toxicosis, -

Shall be punishable by deprivation of liberty for a term of up

to eight years.

2. The same acts committed:

a) in respect of a person or his relatives in connection with his

official activity or the discharge of his public duty;

b) with respect to a minor or another person who is, knowingly for

the guilty person, in a helpless state, as well as with special

cruelty, torture or torments for the victim; 

c) by a generally hazardous method;

d) by hire;

e) out of malicious motives;

f) by reason of political, ideological, racial, national or

religious hatred or enmity, or by reason of hatred or enmity

with respect to some social group;

g) for the purpose of using the organs or tissues of the victim,

shall be punishable by deprivation of liberty for a term of 

up to 10 years with restriction of liberty for a term up to

two years or without such.

3. Acts provided for by the first or second parts of this Article,

if they are committed:

a) by a group of persons, a group of persons by previous concert,

or an organised group; b) against two or more persons, -

c) abolished

shall be punishable by deprivation of liberty for a term of 

up to 12 years with restriction of liberty for a term up to

two years or without such.

4. Acts stipulated in the first, second, or third part of this

Article, which have involved the death of the victim by negligence,

shall be punishable by deprivation of liberty for a term of up

to 15 years with restriction of liberty for a term up to 

two years or without such.

Article 112. Intentional Infliction of Injury to Health of Average Gravity

1. Intentional infliction of injury of average gravity, 

which is not hazardous to human life and which has not involved

consequences referred to in Article 111 of this Code, 

but which has caused protracted injury to health or 

considerable stable loss of general capacity for work by not less

than one-third, shall be punishable by restriction of liberty

for a term up to three years, or by compulsory labour for a term

of up to three years, or by an arrest for a term up to six months

or by deprivation of liberty for a term of up to three years.

2. The same act committed:

a) against two or more persons;

b) against a person or his relatives in connection with his

official activity or the discharge of his public duty;

c) with respect to a minor or another person who is, knowingly

for the guilty person, in a helpless state, as well as with

special cruelty, torture or torments for the victim;

d) by a group of persons, a group of persons by previous concert,

or an organised group; e) out of malicious motives;

f) by reason of political, ideological, racial, national or

religious hatred or enmity, or by reason of hatred or enmity

with respect to some social group -

g) abolished

shall be punishable by deprivation of liberty for a term of five years.

Article 115. Intentional Infliction of Light Injury

1. Intentional infliction of light injury which has temporarily

damaged health or caused an insignificant stable loss of general

capacity for work,

Shall be punishable by a fine of up to 40 thousand roubles,

or in the amount of the wage or salary or any other income of

the convicted person for a period of up to three months,

or punishable by compulsory works for a term of up to 480 hours,

or corrective labour for a term of up to one year, 

or by arrest for a term of up to four months.

2. The same deed committed:

a) through ruffian-like motives;

b) by reason of political, ideological, racial, national or

religious hatred or enmity, or by reason of hatred or enmity

with respect to some social group -

shall be punishable by compulsory works for a term of up to

three hundred and sixty hours, or by corrective labour for a term

of up to one year, or by restriction of liberty for a term of up

to two years, or by compulsory labour for a term of up to two years.

or by an arrest for a term of up to six months, 

or by deprivation of liberty for a term of up two years.

[Update] US: Utah House Judiciary Committee approves bill making it a criminal offense to engage in consensual sexual activity without disclosing known HIV-positive status

Utah committee approves bill that increases penalties for failing to disclose HIV-positive status – Measure would also make it a crime to have consensual sex without disclosing infection.

Sexual offense convictions would carry an enhanced penalty if the perpetrator is HIV-positive under a bill approved Friday by the House Judiciary Committee.

Committee members voted 9-2 in favor of HB369, which calls for a one-step increase in charges for offenses perpetrated by individuals with HIV or AIDS.

The proposal also would make it a class A misdemeanor to engage in otherwise consensual sexual activity if people fail to disclose their HIV status to their sexual partners.

Rep. Justin Fawson, R-North Ogden, said his bill’s class A misdemeanor “nonconsensual sexual conduct” charge is comparable to a charge of reckless endangerment. And while treatment and medication can significantly minimize the risk of spreading infection, Fawson said, people still put their partners in danger by failing to disclose their status.

“There is no way to reduce the risk to zero,” he said. “There’s no way.”

Equality Utah Executive Director Troy Williams said there are already criminal enhancements in Utah code for “bodily harm,” which would cover the intentional or reckless spread of sexually transmitted infections (STIs).

He said the state should encourage HIV-positive individuals to get tested and receive treatment and is worried that HB369 could undermine STI prevention efforts by focusing on status rather than actions.

“We should absolutely be enhancing penalties for intent and harm, but not the health status of the perpetrator,” he said. “We would want to do everything in our power to open the doors to encourage people to be tested.”

Rep. Dixon Pitcher, R-Ogden, asked Williams whether the state’s compassion for a person who is HIV-positive should outweigh the compassion for a person who is infected without warning.

“It’s unconscionable to me that somebody would have sex with somebody without disclosing what they are carrying,” Pitcher said.

But Williams said compassion is not mutually exclusive, cautioning lawmakers against taking steps that target individuals based on their health.

“It is moving us down a path of stigmatizing and criminalizing people who live with HIV,” he said.

Will Carlson, a representative for the Statewide Association of Prosecutors, said applying the law in court could be challenging, because it requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt that perpetrators were aware of their HIV-positive status.

“Proving that a defendant knew, at the time, that a sexual act occurred, may be problematic,” he said.

The committee considered several amendments to the bill, including one that would have broadened the criminal enhancement to the transition of any sexually transmitted infection. That amendment failed, and Fawson suggested that additional changes could be made when HB369 reaches the House floor.

———————————————

Utah House Judiciary Committee discuss passing law that would classify HIV non-disclosure as rape

Bill Charging HIV/AIDS Patients with Rape if they Don’t Disclose Held

Legislation that criminalizes sexual situations involving HIV/AIDS sufferers who knowingly engage in sex without informing the other person was held Wednesday by the House Judiciary Committee.

HB 369 – Sexual Offenses and Statutory Nonconsent Amendments, sponsored by Representative Justin Fawson (Republican – North Ogden), amends statutory nonconsent to sexual activity to include sexual contact in situations where a person who is knowingly infected with HIV or AIDS and engages in sexual activity with a person who is unaware of their illness.

Will Carlson, representing the Statewide Association of Prosecutors, agrees with the legislation’s intent – however, he feels that it goes too far. “We join with the representative in searching out ways to prevent its spread. We appreciate the idea that the best and healthiest form of intimacy is a fully-informed intimacy,” said Carlson. “But with first-degree felonies, which is the heaviest hammer the criminal justice system can offer, this does not do what the sponsor is trying to do. This does not say if you have a crime and the offender is HIV-positive then that crime is enhanced. This says if you are HIV-positive and you are intimate, this is a crime unless you’ve disclosed your status.”

Troy Williams, executive director of Equality Utah, called the bill “a punitive approach” that further stigmatizes those who suffer from HIV or AIDS and could actually result in a reduction in HIV testing. “Like all people, we want to see a reduction in HIV infections. We want HIV-positive members of the LGBTQ community to be tested, know their status, and to not feel stigma in disclosing their status with intimate partners,” said Williams. “This proposed legislation could actually have the opposite effect. By increasing HIV-related stigma and potential criminal consequences for knowing and sharing one’s HIV-positive status, this bill could actually discourage HIV testing and disclosure. There’s no evidence that laws targeting people living with HIV for criminal penalties actually reduce the number of new cases of HIV or improve public health in any way.”

Like the others who testified, Ron Gordon, executive director of the Utah Commission on Criminal and Juvenile Justice, also feels that HB 369 simply goes too far. “The question of whether that should have any kind of enhancement might be one proper for discussion, but this bill goes much further than that and takes conduct that right now would not be criminal at all and would make that a first-degree felony rape,” said Gordon. “That’s the concern that my commission has, is that it goes from being lawful under current law to first-degree felony rape. That’s a very big jump in our criminal code.”

Representative Karianne Lisonbee (Republican – Clearfield) believes the legislation is fine the way it is. “I really don’t see the problem with this bill. I think informed consent means informed consent. Whether the disease is transmitted or not, the person should inform, the person should disclose. If they don’t, it should be a crime because they are potentially infecting another person with a deadly disease. I don’t have a problem with this language.”

Representative Brian Greene (Republican – Pleasant Grove) agrees that something needs to be done but questioned going as far as labeling it as rape. “The question has been raised, shouldn’t this be criminal? Shouldn’t having sexual relations with somebody, an infected person having those relations with somebody else and not disclosing that be criminal? I think we all agree that it ought to be, but the question is should it be rape?” said Greene.

Greene also believes the statute itself needs fixing. “This is a problematic statute. It’s a poorly drafted statute, and we continue to come back to it and try to add new elements rather than fixing the statute,” said Greene. “I think [HB 369] just perpetuates the problems.” In 2015, Greene came under fire when he questioned whether engaging in sex with an unconscious person is rape in every instance while discussing legislation in the same section of code. Greene later apologized for his remarks.

Representative Brian King (Democrat – Salt Lake City) moved to hold the bill, a motion which unanimously passed. Fawson told committee members he would work on the bill and bring it back in a couple of days.

Published on Utah Political Capitol on February 22, 2017

US: Rep. Sharon Cooper is sponsoring a resolution to reform Georgia's HIV Criminalisation laws

Lawmaker wants to reform Georgia’s HIV laws

By Regina Willis | Feb 21, 2017 | 11:27 AM

A Marietta Republican is sponsoring a measure to examine the state’s HIV criminalization laws, which advocates argue are outdated and stigmatize people with HIV.

Rep. Sharon Cooper (photo), who chairs the influential House Health & Human Services Committee, introduced House Resolution 240 on Feb. 14 to create a Joint Study Committee on Reforming HIV Related Criminal Laws.

“It was brought to my attention that a lot of the laws on our books are older, and that a lot of the laws on HIV were done in the eighties and we’ve certainly had a lot of change in science since that time,” Cooper said.

In Georgia, HIV criminalization laws make it a felony for an HIV-positive person to engage in sex without first disclosing their status. The laws also criminalize acts like spitting – when the behavior is directed at law enforcement officers with penalties that include up to 20 years in prison.

The current Georgia law also doesn’t take into account issues like condom usage or advising a partner to take PEP (post-exposure prophylaxis) after sexual intercourse – acts which reduce the likelihood of transmission. LGBT and HIV activists have blasted HIV criminalization laws in nearly three-dozen states as a failure, criticizing the statues for adding stigma to HIV, keeping people from getting tested, and oppressing already marginalized populations such as LGBT people.

“The law in Georgia doesn’t require intent to infect, it doesn’t require likelihood of transmission because it has things like spit, urine, feces in it. It doesn’t require transmission,” Nina Martinez, a member of the Coalition to End HIV Criminalization in Georgia, said during a panel discussion last year.

Lawmakers create study committees to hear expert testimony and collect information about an issue ahead of possible legislative action. Cooper’s resolution would create a 12-member committee – five members each from the House and Senate, along with a representative of the Prosecuting Attorneys’ Council and the state Department of Public Health – that would meet and issue a report of its findings by Dec. 1.

“Sometimes you have to take baby steps,” Cooper said. “Bring in the experts to give you the background and the academic backing to back up which route you decide to go.”

One option the committee could study is completely eliminating HIV criminalization laws, according to Cooper’s legislation:

“The best practice would be for states to reform these laws to eliminate HIV-specific criminal penalties except in two distinct circumstances. First, states may wish to retain criminal liability when a person who knows he or she is HIV positive commits a (non-HIV specific) sex crime when there is a risk of transmission (e.g., rape or other sexual assault). The second circumstance is when the individual knows he or she is HIV positive and the evidence clearly demonstrates that individual’s intent was to transmit the virus and that the behavior engaged in had a significant risk of transmission, whether or not transmission actually occurred.”

Another option the committee could explore is keeping current laws in place but updating them to reflect the actual routes of transmission that are possible, eliminating actions such as biting and spitting. The Center for Disease Control & Prevention supports reforming HIV criminalization laws.

HR 240 has been assigned to the House Special Rules committee and undergoes the same route to approval as other legislation. If it gets approval from the committee, then it moves to a House vote and then to the Senate for consideration.

The resolution has a handful of influential co-sponsors, including Rep. Wendell Willard, a Republican and chair of the Judiciary Committee, Rep. Carolyn Hugley, a Democrat and Minority Whip, and Rep. Bruce Broadrick, a Republican from Dalton.

Bill would OK expedited partner treatment for STDS

Cooper is also sponsoring another sexual and reproductive health related measure. House Bill 360 allows physicians to prescribe medications for certain sexually transmitted diseases – namely chlamydia and gonorrhea – to somebody’s partner without first examining the partner. Expedited partner therapy (EPT) is recommended by the CDC to help control the spread of certain STDs.

“Normally the physicians have to see somebody before they order a medication, and sometimes it’s very hard to get the partner to come in,” Cooper said.

“[EPT] allows one part of the duo to save face, and hopefully take the medicine and then make sure they are both clear so they are not just reinfecting each other,” she added.

Some 38 states currently allow this practice. HB 360 has been assigned to Cooper’s Health & Human Services Committee. Cooper said a version of this bill introduced last year was passed in the House and was held up in the Senate.

Neither the resolution or the bill has been scheduled for a hearing.

Canada: Canadian Coalition to Reform HIV Criminalization hopeful after meeting with federal justice officials but some provinces remain reluctant

Momentum building for HIV law reform

Coalition emerges from meeting with senior federal justice officials last week feeling hopeful, but provinces remain reluctant to commit to moratorium on new charges involving non-disclosure of HIV status

BY ROB EASTON

Chad Clarke says his nightmare and rebirth – he uses the two interchangeably to describe his experience with HIV laws and the justice system – made him stronger.

It started on February 12, 2009, when he turned himself in on an aggravated sexual assault charge brought by his former common-law partner. A judge found Clarke failed to disclose his HIV status, but Clarke says he didn’t know he was HIV+ at the time.

He didn’t see the light until he walked out of prison more than two years later in June 2011, but his resurrection as an HIV activist could not have happened without the experience of prison, which led to his resolve to fight so no one would have go through what he did.

Clarke found himself face to face with high-level officials in the federal justice ministry last week, telling his story and reading the testimonials of others who say they have been unfairly treated by the Canadian justice system because of their HIV status. Clarke is part of the Canadian Coalition to Reform HIV Criminalization, a group of researchers, lawyers, service providers and people living with HIV who’ve come together to capitalize on recent momentum around getting HIV-related laws changed.

Finally, Minister of Justice Jody Wilson-Raybould seems to be listening to the latest science about HIV transmission: it’s a manageable condition for the vast majority of people living with HIV who take antiretroviral medicines. According to the latest research, a person living with HIV with a suppressed viral load for at least six months cannot pass on the virus.

It’s a major reason why advocates are calling for an overhaul of the law. On World AIDS Day (December 1, 2016), the justice minister released a statement acknowledging that “the over-criminalization of HIV non-disclosure discourages many individuals from being tested and seeking treatment, and further stigmatizes those living with HIV or AIDS.”

Clarke feels vindicated after years of feeling alone. Over the phone from his home in Dresden, Ontario, following the meeting, he says, “I’m here to open people’s eyes and let them know what happens to people when they’re criminally charged.”

Behind bars, he told justice ministry officials, people living with HIV are branded dangerous to guards and other inmates. Once he was removed from his prison laundry job after a guard was concerned that he would “give AIDS” to other inmates by handling their clothes. “I just looked at the guard,” Clarke says.

HIV cannot be transmitted through clothes, saliva, touch or a toilet seat. HIV transmission requires an exchange of blood, semen, pre-seminal, rectal or vaginal fluids, or breast milk. It is most commonly transmitted through unprotected sex or sharing of injection drug equipment.

Though the federal government has begun to engage communities on how it might change prosecutorial guidelines to reflect up-to-date science and human rights principles around HIV, some provinces – particularly Ontario, where the bulk of prosecutions occur – continue to ignore further attempts at dialogue.

Police and Crown attorneys here have aggressively pursued aggravated sexual assault charges against people even when they don’t transmit the virus, says Ryan Peck, executive director of the HIV & AIDS Legal Clinic Ontario (HALCO). The group has been calling for a moratorium on prosecutions in the province except in cases of intentional transmission.

“This is a very reasonable approach, and a number of communities are speaking up about the current over-broad use of the criminal law,” Peck says, citing a recent consensus statement from 70 leading HIV researchers and academics.

Emilie Smith, a spokesperson for Ontario’s Ministry of the Attorney General, responding via email to NOW’s request for comment, says that the Ontario government “is committed to working with the federal government to examine the law on this important issue.”

But she says that Crown prosecutors will continue to take direction on current HIV non-disclosure cases from the 2012 Supreme Court of Canada ruling on R. v. Mabior. Critics say the ruling outlines too low a threshold for conviction. The ministry, she says, has no further comment on the request for a moratorium until the federal government and provinces can agree on prosecutorial guidelines on the issue.

Clarke continues to push forward, telling his story and calling for greater justice for those still caught up in the system.

“There are other people out there who are experiencing this right now,” says Clarke. “It choked me up at one point when I was reading one of the testimonies, because this is not right. It’s not right.

“I can live with my HIV. It’s the PTSD that I don’t like,” says Clarke, who recently went on medication “to be able to sleep through the night, not have nightmares about people dying or stabbing one another in jail.”

Clarke, who used to be an X-ray technician, must also live the rest of his life as a registered sex offender, which affects his ability to find work. “I can’t even volunteer at an old folks home. They’re going to do a vulnerable sector screening check, and my name is going to come up on the registry.”

Published in Now on February 19th, 2017

US: Florida courts still waiting for Supreme Court decision on whether sex between same sex couples is actually intercourse under Florida statutes

It has been two years since the state’s highest court held legal arguments about the validity of a 1986 statute requiring HIV-positive people to reveal their infection before having “sexual intercourse.”

The case involves a man charged with a felony after failing to tell his male sex partner that he carries the human immunodeficiency virus. There’s the rub.

The legal issue before the court is . Really. That’s because of the way the law was written a hundred years ago, and now courts in different parts of Florida have disagreed on its application.

“In the history of Florida law the specific term, sexual intercourse has always been interpreted only to mean reproductive sexual conduct,” Gary De Baun’s lawyer argued.

Therefore, he claimed his client’s conviction should thus be reversed; that he did not violate the law as written, because it only applies to sexual conduct between a man and a woman.

Florida courts have disagreed, and the legal issue is before the Supreme Court for resolution. But it has been for a long while. It was argued on Feb. 4, 2015, and the court has still not ruled. Meanwhile, until the highest court of this case decides this case, prosecutors in multiple counties are reaching conflicting decisions.

The record in this case shows that Debaun’s partner asked him to take an HIV test, and that Debaun, who knew that he was infected, gave his partner fake test results, showing he was free of the virus that causes AIDS. A lower court threw out the charge, but it was reinstated on appeal. So until the court decides, Debaun lives in limbo.

Debaun’s lawyers are saying that since the legislature has failed to define intercourse as anything but sex between a man and a woman, the disclosure requirement cannot be applied to same-sex couples. If the court agrees, the case would be dismissed- if the court ever rules.

At the time, Justice Pariente criticized the legislature for its inaction, remarking “this issue could be solved easily by them.”

An experienced court watcher in Tallahassee told SFGN that cases “generally don’t take this long to decide. One of the moving parties should prod the court for a ruling.”

It’s ironic the delay has taken so long, because on April 7, 2014, the Florida Supreme Court designated this as a “high profile case of significant public and media interest.”

Well, apparently not that significant. We will see soon.

Published in FSGN on February 14, 2017

Canada: Community organisations in Ontario call for an immediate moratorium on all prosecutions and sound prosecutorial guidelines

Stop the witch-hunt of HIV criminalization

People living with HIV are being charged with some of the most serious offences in our criminal law, even in situations where there has been no transmission of HIV, no realistic possibility of transmission, and no intent to transmit.

Witch-hunts aren’t always sudden social paroxysms. They can be pursued slowly and with a veneer of legality — a steady erosion of rights and decency tapping into, and reinforcing deep-rooted fear, stigma and prejudice. Their harm isn’t limited solely to the injustices meted out to those directly targeted; they cast a broader shadow over entire communities.

It’s what’s happening here, courtesy of the provincial Ministry of the Attorney General that has so far refused to recognize both science and human rights when it comes to prosecutions for alleged nondisclosure of HIV.

People living with HIV are being charged with some of the most serious offences in our criminal law (such as “aggravated sexual assault”), even in situations where there has been no transmission of HIV, no realistic possibility of transmission, and no intent to transmit.

Simply put, they are being criminalized for having HIV, caught up in a justice system, from policing to prosecution to prison, that too often disregards evidence and the public interest.

(After the recent incident involving a Toronto police officer talking nonsense about how “AIDS” can be transmitted, it’s clear there is much work to be done on the policing front, too. Scientific consensus is that there is zero risk of HIV transmission through spit and a vanishingly minuscule possibility of transmission through a bite. At least scientifically speaking, we’re not in 1984.)

For many years, a group of committed people living with HIV, lawyers, academics and other advocates has called on the attorney general to put an end to this overly broad use of the criminal law.

In particular, this coalition has urged the adoption of sound guidelines for prosecutors to appropriately limit the use of criminal charges. Repeatedly, it has denounced problematic prosecutions that continue in Ontario — prosecutions accompanied by media coverage that, according to a recent study, disproportionately features black and/or immigrant men and often reflects racist stereotypes. Repeatedly, the coalition has suggested remedies for this ongoing injustice, drawing on a province-wide consultation.

But successive attorneys general have been unable or unwilling to rein in overzealous prosecutors, and have failed to develop prosecutorial guidance in line with science and numerous international recommendations.

As it stands, a so-called “HIV experts group” of crown prosecutors within the ministry now runs this horrible show in Ontario, leading the charge against people living with HIV. From the outside, we don’t know the group’s composition or how they make their decisions to pursue a particular prosecution.

Community organizations have requested a meeting. So, too, have scientific experts — who have pointed out that a correctly used latex condom is 100 per cent effective in blocking passage of HIV, as well as the science now establishing that someone with an undetectable viral load (including as a result of effective treatment with anti-HIV drugs) is effectively non-infectious. Yet this group of “HIV expert” prosecutors has not responded.

However, recent reports in the Star revealed an infamous guide for prosecuting cases of HIV nondisclosure, developed by Hamilton crown attorney Karen Shea — who has played an active role in advancing such cases around the province — for use by other prosecutors. (The government was ordered to release this document after years of wrangling in court.)

A Ministry spokesperson admitted the guide takes a “prosecution at all costs” approach and “doesn’t take into consideration the kinds of situations in which a more lenient approach might be justified.”

It is therefore no surprise that we continue to see the misuse of charges of aggravated sexual assault, a criminal offence usually reserved for the most violent rapes, even in cases of consensual sex where there was negligible or no risk of HIV transmission, no actual transmission and no intent to transmit.

Such prosecutions damage individual lives and public health. As stated last month by Canada’s federal justice minister, “… the over-criminalization of HIV nondisclosure discourages many individuals from being tested and seeking treatment, and further stigmatizes those living with HIV or AIDS.”

Enough is enough. Attorney General Yasir Naqvi — and Premier Wynne herself, who expressed her concern to us in-person three years ago — must stop this witch-hunt. More than 500 letters of concern have, as of this week, been sent to both by outraged community members.

We need an immediate moratorium on all prosecutions (except in those very rare cases of intentional transmission), and we need sound prosecutorial guidelines that respect science and human rights.

Richard Elliott is the executive director of the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network, a member of the Ontario Working Group on Criminal Law and HIV Exposure. Stephen Lewis is board chair of the Stephen Lewis Foundation and co-director of AIDS-Free World, an international advocacy organization.

Published in The Star on February 8, 2017

US: Bill introduced in California to modernise outdated laws criminalising HIV

Sen. Scott Wiener and Assembly member Todd Gloria Announce Bill to Modernize Discriminatory HIV Criminalization Laws

APLA Health and other organizations join in support of bill to reform outdated laws that have not been updated since the 1980s and ‘90s

Today, California Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) and Assembly member Todd Gloria (D-San Diego) introduced a bill to modernize laws that criminalize and stigmatize people living with HIV. Assembly member David Chiu is also a co-author of the bill, SB 239. SB 239 would amend California’s HIV criminalization laws, enacted in the 1980s and ’90s at a time of fear and ignorance about HIV and its transmission, to make them consistent with laws involving other serious communicable diseases.

The bill is co-sponsored by: APLA Health, the ACLU of California, Black AIDS Institute, Equality California, Lambda Legal, and Positive Women’s Network – USA. The organizations are part of Californians for HIV Criminalization Reform (CHCR), a coalition of people living with HIV, HIV and health service providers, civil rights organizations, and public health professionals dedicated to ending the criminalization of HIV in California. San Francisco Supervisor Jeff Sheehy also attended the announcement.

“These laws are discriminatory, not based in science, and detrimental to our HIV prevention goals,” Sen. Wiener says. “They need to be repealed. During the 1980s—the same period when some proposed quarantining people with HIV—California passed these discriminatory criminal laws and singled out people with HIV for harsher punishment than people with other communicable diseases. It’s time to move beyond stigmatizing, shaming, and fearing people who are living with HIV. It’s time to repeal these laws, use science-based approaches to reduce HIV transmission (instead of fear-based approaches), and stop discriminating against our HIV-positive neighbors.”

SB 239 updates California law to approach transmission of HIV in the same way as transmission of other serious communicable diseases. It also brings California statutes up to date with the current understanding of HIV prevention, treatment, and transmission. Specifically, it eliminates several HIV-specific criminal laws that impose harsh and draconian penalties, including for activities that do not risk exposure or transmission of HIV. It would make HIV subject to the laws that apply to other serious communicable diseases, thereby removing discrimination and stigma for people living with HIV, and maintaining public health.

“It’s time for California to reevaluate the way it thinks about HIV and to reduce the stigma associated with the disease,” Assemblymember Gloria says. “Current state law related to those living with HIV is unfair because it is based on the fear and ignorance of a bygone era. With this legislation, California takes an important step to update our laws to reflect the medical advances which no longer make a positive diagnosis equal to a death sentence.”

“These laws are outdated and only serve to fuel the spread of HIV in our communities. They also disproportionately impact people of color and women,” APLA Health CEO Craig E. Thompson says. “Our understanding of HIV has changed significantly since the 1980s and our laws need to change to reflect that. Updating these laws will reduce stigma and prevent people from going to prison simply because they are living with a chronic disease. We appreciate the leadership of Senator Wiener and Assemblymember Gloria on this critical social justice issue.”

In addition to the organizations co-sponsoring the bill, other CHCR members supporting the legislation include the Los Angeles LGBT Center, the Los Angeles HIV Law and Policy Project, the Transgender Law Center, Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, the Free Speech Coalition, Sex Workers Outreach Project, and Erotic Service Providers Legal, Education, and Research Project.

Published on February 7, 2017 in AplaHealth

US: Please help raise $20,000 to support Michael Johnson's appeal.

Justice for Michael L. Johnson

Michael L. Johnson now sits in prison under a law that hurts many and helps no one. With your help, he could be free in a matter of months.

Everyone ought to have the right to a fair trial. A toxic mix of racial bias, homophobia and income inequality made that impossible for Michael L. Johnson. With your help, he may have another chance at justice.

In the fall of 2013, Michael Johnson was living his dream. He was a student-athlete at Lindenwood University where he was a respected collegiate wrestler. He aspired to one day compete in the Olympics. But Michael’s dreams were shattered in October 2013, when he was arrested for being a sexually active black gay man living with HIV. In May 2015, under the unfair and unjust HIV criminalization laws in the state of Missouri, Michael was found guilty and sentenced to 30 ½ years.

Remarkably, in December 2016, the Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, reversed his conviction based on the prosecution’s failure to turn over important evidence in a timely fashion. But Michael is not out of the woods yet. In order for Michael to have a chance to get his life back, he needs the best legal counsel available at the new trial that will take place sometime soon. This is where your help Is needed.

Michael urgently needs an attorney that can defend him and give him a shot at true justice. In order to give Michael that chance, we need to raise $20,000 in 20 days. This money will be used to hire a private attorney that has the experience, background, and passion to help Michael fight the HIV criminalization laws in Missouri.

A new trial date has not yet been set – but time is of the essence! Michael needs experienced counsel immediately.

Any amount of money will help – if we all pull together, we can reach this goal and give Michael Johnson a new lease on life. Please share his story and help support his quest for freedom.

———————————————————————————————————

We are advocates, organizers, and community members committed to working toward the freedom of Michael L. Johnson, a young black gay student, respected college athlete, and aspiring olympic wrestler before he was arrested under Missouri’s unjust HIV criminalization law.

Philippines: Under Philippine law, non-disclosure of HIV could be ground for annulment of marriage but not criminal liability, says Legal Advocacy Center's Director

Concealing HIV-Aids ground for annulment

The concealment of Human Immunodeficiency Virus-Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (HIV-Aids) status could be a ground for annulment of marriage although no criminal liability will be imposed, a lawyer said. Ateneo Public Interest and Legal Advocacy Center (Apila) director Romeo Cabarde Jr. said on Friday, February 3, during the Consultation and Harmonization Meeting with Partners at Brokenshire Hospital, Davao City, that under the Republic Act 8504 (Philippine Aids Prevention and Control Act of 1998) that no legal cases will be charged if an infected person opted to hide his or her status.

But, under Section 34 that “any person with HIV is obliged to disclose his or her HIV status and health condition to his or her spouse or sexual partner at the earliest opportune time.” He made the statement after one participant raised a question during the open forum whether not revealing intentionally to his or her spouse that he or she has HIV-Aids could have legal consequences considering the serious implication, known to have no cure yet, when transmitted through sexual intercourse. The lawyer said that according to the Family Code of the Philippines, a marriage may be annulled if the consent of either party was obtained by fraud. Under Article 46, that any of the following circumstances shall constitute fraud referred concealment of sexually transmissible disease, regardless of its nature, existing at the time of the marriage. Thus, Cabarde urged health advocates during the event to be cautious and keep the confidentiality of individuals who are positive with the disease and provide the full protection of his or her human rights and civil liberties in accordance with the law. If someone disclosed their patient’s status without permission, they could face charges and penalties for breaching the medical confidentiality of the person infected with HIV-Aids. Instead of leading the person’s admission, he said that the health advocates should instead encourage those infected to divulge their status themselves. “As an advocate, that’s the best thing we can do hindi natin pangunahan na i-reveal (spearhead the revelation) without their consent because we will have a criminal liability,” Cabarde said. Cabarde added the agency will strengthen their awareness campaign and counselling once the infected person announce that he or she is ready to disclose and further assist their partners on how they would deal with the revelation.

Published in SunStar on February 4th, 2017

Malawi: Zomba High Court in Malawi delivers landmark ruling on the application of criminal law to cases of HIV transmission and exposure

NEWS RELEASE: Malawi High Court affirms Human Right Approach to Criminalisation of HIV Transmission and Exposure

1 February, 2017

Zomba–On 19 January 2017, the Zomba High Court in Malawi delivered a landmark ruling on the application of criminal law to cases of HIV transmission and exposure.

The appellant is a woman living with HIV who was convicted of negligently and recklessly doing an act which is “likely to spread the infection of any disease which is dangerous to life” under section 192 of the Malawi Penal Code for accidentally breastfeeding another person’s child. She was unrepresented at her trial and sentenced to 9 months’ imprisonment.

Before the High Court, she appealed her conviction and sentence and challenged the constitutionality of section 192 of the Penal Code for being vague and overbroad. She raised expert evidence to show the “infinitesimally small risk” of HIV transmission by women on antiretroviral treatment through breastfeeding. The State agreed that the appellant’s conviction and sentence should be overturned and set aside.

At the hearing on 2 December 2016, the Court, per Ntaba J, granted an order that the appellant’s identity be concealed to protect her confidentiality and that of the children concerned. On 19 January 2017, the High Court acquitted the appellant and ordered her immediate release. It held that the proceedings in the trial court were irregular and “blatantly bias” against the appellant, compromising her right to a fair trial.The Court held that the appellant did not have the requisite knowledge or belief that breastfeeding the complainant’s child was likely to spread HIV and cautioned against the misapplication of criminal law in cases of HIV transmission and exposure. The Court recommended the constitutional challenge be filed for separate determination considering the national interest in the issue.

Ms Clara Banya of ICW, Malawi said, “Breastfeeding is not a crime. Breastfeeding is recommended for women living with HIV who are on antiretroviral treatment by the World Health Organisation and in terms of the Ministry of Health’s Guidelines.”

“This case highlights ongoing discrimination against people living with HIV and illustrates the struggles faced by women living with HIV. There is need for communities to understand facts about HIV transmission and exposure,” said Ms Edna Tembo, the Executive Director of the Coalition of Women Living with HIV/AIDS (COWLHA).

“This case sets important precedent regionally on the misapplication of the criminal law in cases of HIV exposure, transmission and non-disclosure. The Court cautioned against the trend of crafting specific offences to deal with HIV, and affirmed the importance of respecting the rights to privacy, dignity and due process of people living with HIV,” said Annabel Raw, Health Rights Lawyer at the Southern Africa Litigation Centre (SALC), which supported the appeal.

“We commend the acquittal of the appellant and the affirmation by the court that the application of criminal law in cases of HIV transmission and exposure should be primarily protective of people living with HIV from ‘the unjust consequences of public panic.’ Laws relating to the criminalisation of HIV transmission, exposure and/or non-disclosure in the southern and east African region are often overly broad and vague, violate criminal law principles, trump human rights and are based on myths and misconceptions about HIV and its modes of transmission, thus undermining effective public health,” said Michaela Clayton, Director of the AIDS and Rights Alliance for Southern Africa (ARASA), who acted as an expert witness for the appellant.

The appellant was represented by Mr Wesley Mwafulirwa of John Tennyson Associates.

NOTE TO PRESS ON PARTIES’ ANONYMITY

The Zomba High Court has issued an order that the names and personal details of the appellant, the complainant and their respective children be anonymised and protected from public disclosure. While press may report on the case, the Court warned that any use of the names or information that may identify the appellant, complainant or children would be a violation of the Court order and subject to contempt of court proceedings.

In granting this order, the Court took judicial note of the fact that the stigma and discrimination attached to HIV continues to be a challenge for people living with and affected by HIV.

For more information:

Annabel Raw (Health Rights Lawyer, SALC): Email: AnnabelR@salc.org.za; t: +27 (0)10 596 8538

Clara Banya (ICW, Malawi): Email: clarabanya@yahoo.com; t: +265 995 885 522/+265 888 898858

For background on the case and copies of the Court order and judgment: http://www.southernafricalitigationcentre.org/malawi-challenging-the-criminalisation-of-breastfeeding-by-women-living-with-hiv/