Australia: Director of Public Prosecutions uses HIV case to argue in favour of lowering burden of proof for prosecutions

Easing proof for violent crime would bring legal ‘turmoil’, court told

A push to make it easier to obtain convictions in serious violence cases would throw criminal law into “turmoil”, the Court of Appeal has heard.

Director of Public Prosecutions Kerri Judd last year took the unusual step of challenging the precedents that set the threshold to prove the offence of recklessly causing serious injury after a man was acquitted of a near-fatal assault on an English backpacker in Melbourne.

The 28-year-old backpacker was kicked in the head when a fight broke out between two groups of men in Southbank in February 2017. His skull was fractured when his head hit a hard surface, leaving him on life support for three weeks.

The 18-year-old accused of kicking the backpacker was acquitted last year of both intentionally and recklessly causing serious injury, after he argued his actions were in self-defence. Prosecutors also couldn’t prove the probability the teenager knew he was going to cause serious injury by kicking the backpacker.

Now Ms Judd wants to lower the standard so prosecutors would have to prove an accused person was “possibly” aware their actions would cause serious harm, rather than “probably”.

Chris Boyce, QC, acting on behalf of the DPP, said the burden of proof was set at an unreasonably high level.

“We have to prove a state of mind that is verging on intent for an offence which was intended to be of a lesser morality in terms of culpability, yet the definition merges between the two,” Mr Boyce told the Court of Appeal on Monday.

But Dermot Dann, QC, acting for the acquitted teenager, said no other DPP has “complained” about the definition before, nor has Parliament sought to change it.

He said such a change would affect any offence that contains recklessness.

“This root and branch alteration … would result in turmoil in terms of the operation of the criminal law and expansion of criminal liability,” Mr Dann said.

Justice Phillip Priest, one of the judges hearing the appeal, said: “My impression, I must say, [is that] it’s been applied satisfactorily for 25 years.”

The precedent that defines predicting consequence as a probability, rather than a possibility, was set by the High Court in 1985 in a case of a truck driver who drove his vehicle into a building and fled the scene.

Five people died and he was convicted of murder but on appeal the High Court found that “the question is whether the accused knew or foresaw that his actions would probably cause death or grievous bodily harm”.

This position was solidified in a 1997 Victorian case against a man accused of attempted murder and recklessly causing injury after a gun went off and injured someone nearby.

The DPP asked the Court of Appeal to instead look to another High Court case, that of a NSW man who knew he had HIV and infected a sexual partner.

In that case, it was sufficient to establish an accused foresaw the possibility that sex would result in contraction of a grievous bodily disease.

A decision in the case, heard by Court of Appeal President Chris Maxwell and justices Stephen McLeish, Stephen Kaye, Karin Emerton and Justice Priest, will be made at a later date.

US: Ohio Supreme Court upholds the constitutionality of the State’s HIV Disclosure law

Statute Requiring Disclosure of HIV Positive Status to Sexual Partners Is Constitutional

The Supreme Court today unanimously upheld the constitutionality of R.C. 2903.11(B)(1), Ohio’s HIV-disclosure statute, which makes it a crime for a person who has tested positive for HIV to knowingly engage in sexual conduct with another without disclosing that information, concluding that it does not violate either the free speech provision of the First Amendment or the Equal Protection Clauses of the United States or Ohio Constitutions.

In a majority opinion authored by Justice Terrence O’Donnell, the Court concluded that because R.C. 2903.11(B)(1) regulates conduct, not speech, it does not violate the First Amendment, and because it is rationally related to the state’s legitimate interest in preventing the transmission of HIV to sexual partners who may not be aware of the risk, it does not violate equal protection.

Chief Justice Maureen O’Connor, Justice William M. O’Neill, and Eleventh District Court of Appeals Judge Thomas R. Wright, sitting for Justice Patrick F. Fischer, joined the majority opinion.

In a concurring opinion, Justice R. Patrick DeWine wrote that the law regulates speech as well as conduct. The concurrence found, however, that the law constitutionally regulates speech because it is narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling governmental interest and is the least-restrictive way of doing so. Justice DeWine’s concurrence was joined by Justices Sharon L. Kennedy and Judith L. French.

Batista Indicted for Violating R.C. 2903.11(B)(1) In 2001, while Orlando Batista was incarcerated on an unrelated charge, the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction tested him for HIV and informed him that he was positive for the disease. After his release, he began a relationship with a woman identified in court documents as R.S. and engaged in intercourse with her without disclosing his HIV positive status to her prior to engaging in that conduct. Two months later, R.S. learned of Batista’s HIV positive status. When R.S. confronted him about it, he acknowledged he had tested positive for the virus and told her he had been infected since he was a teenager. In a subsequent interview with police, Batista admitted to having intercourse with R.S. without telling her he was HIV positive.

A grand jury indicted Batista for violating R.C. 2903.11(B)(1). He moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing the law violated the First Amendment right to free speech and the Equal Protection Clauses of both the United States and Ohio Constitutions. The trial court denied the motion, and Batista subsequently pleaded no contest to the charge. The trial court found him guilty and sentenced him to eight years in prison.

The First District Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, concluding the statute did not violate the First Amendment or the Equal Protection Clauses of the United States and Ohio Constitutions. Batista appealed to the Supreme Court, which agreed to hear the case.

Statute Regulates Conduct, Not Speech Justice Terrence O’Donnell, writing for the majority, explained that the First Amendment does not prohibit statutes that regulate conduct from imposing incidental burdens on speech.

The Court noted that the Missouri and Illinois supreme courts have held that statutes similar to R.C. 2903.11(B)(1) did not regulate speech and therefore did not violate the First Amendment.

Referencing those decisions, the majority concluded that “[a]lthough R.C. 2903.11(B)(1) requires those who know they are HIV positive to disclose their status if they choose to engage in sexual conduct with another person, the disclosure is incidental to the statute’s regulation of the targeted conduct. Thus, this statute regulates conduct, not speech, and therefore does not violate the First Amendment right to free speech.”

Statute Does Not Violate Right to Equal Protection Justice O’Donnell pointed out that R.C. 2903.11(B)(1)’s treatment of individuals with knowledge of their HIV-positive status who fail to disclose that status to a sexual partner furthers the state’s interest in “curbing HIV transmission to individuals who may not be aware of the risk,” and concluded that the statute does not violate equal protection because “there is some conceivable basis to support the legislative arrangement.”

He further explained that “the existence of other sexually transmitted diseases that may have serious public health and safety consequences does not eliminate the rational relationship between the classification here—individuals with knowledge of their HIV-positive status who fail to disclose that status to sexual partners—and the goal of curbing HIV transmission.”

The majority opinion concluded “that there have been advancements in the treatment of individuals with HIV that may have reduced the transmission and mortality rates associated with the disease. However, we cannot say that there is no plausible policy reason for the classification or that the relationship between the classification and the policy goal renders it arbitrary or irrational.”

Concurrence Finds Speech Regulation Justice DeWine wrote that he agrees with the majority that Batista’s rights were not violated, but reaches that conclusion “by a different path.”

“The statute plainly regulates both conduct and speech: one who tests positive for the human immunodeficiency virus (‘HIV’) must tell his partner that he is HIV positive before engaging in sex. When the government tells someone what he must say, it is regulating speech,” he wrote.

Justice DeWine explained that any law compelling content-based speech must pass the U.S. Supreme Court’s “strict scrutiny” test, which requires that a speech regulation be narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling government interest and use the least restrictive means to achieve it.

The concurrence stated that Ohio has an interest in limiting the spread of HIV and an interest in ensuring informed consent to sexual relations. The opinion noted that Batista essentially argued that because of the advancements of treatment, the health risks for HIV “are not really all that bad.”

“But the question is who gets to evaluate that risk: should the HIV-positive individual get to assess that risk for his sexual partner or should the partner get to make her own decision. Fair to say that most—if not all—people would insist on the right to make that decision for themselves,” the opinion stated.

The concurrence concluded that protecting public health and ensuring informed consent are compelling government interests, and that the law uses the least restrictive limit on speech by only requiring HIV-positive individuals to disclose their status to their sexual partners.

“I cannot fathom—and Batista has not advanced—any less restrictive or more narrowly tailored means that could have been employed by the government to achieve its interests here,” Justice DeWine wrote.

2016-0903. State v. Batista, Slip Opinion No. 2017-Ohio-8304.

View oral argument video of this case.

Please note: Opinion summaries are prepared by the Office of Public Information for the general public and news media. Opinion summaries are not prepared for every opinion, but only for noteworthy cases. Opinion summaries are not to be considered as official headnotes or syllabi of court opinions. The full text of this and other court opinions are available online.

Australia: Proposed law in Western Australia would forcibly test prisoners for HIV and has no basis in science

HIV experts say McGowan government is ignoring science

Proposed laws to forcibly test prisoners for HIV have no basis in science, perpetuate stigma, and should be referred to a parliamentary committee, according to the West Australian AIDS Council and National Association for People with HIV Australia.

Under laws set to be introduced to the WA Parliament’s Legislative Council on Tuesday, a prisoner who assaults a prison officer will be immediately tested for HIV.

HIV and blood-borne disease experts say the proposed laws overlook critical facts and are not based on science. They highlight that HIV is not transmitted through saliva, a key myth perpetuated to justify this and similar legislation.

The legislation also fails to acknowledge the very successful treatment options available for people who are concerned they may have been exposed to HIV such as PEP treatment.

The experts say in the unlikely event a prison officer was exposed to HIV, they should take post-exposure prophylaxis, a medicine which can prevent transmission within 72 hours of exposure.

Additionally they say the McGowan government’s media releases on the issue falsely claims prison officers who have been assaulted have to wait three months before they themselves can be tested for HIV. They highlight that modern tests can detect exposure within just six days, rather than the 90 day description put forward by the government.

Corrective Service Minister Fran Logan has publicly stated that prisoner officers currently have to wait three months to get tested.

“Currently prison officers, who have been assaulted by a prisoner, have to wait three months before they themselves are tested to see if they have contracted an infectious disease such as Hepatitis C or HIV.” the Minister said in a media statement in February.

There is also concern that falsely equating HIV with criminality inflames stigma and discourages people from seeking tests for HIV.

The health experts also highlight that the debate in parliament, and reasons given for needing the new legislation make incorrect statements about Hepatitis, ignoring that a vaccine exists for Hepatitis B and there is a cure for Hepatitis C.

WAAC President, Asanka Gunasekera said the Western Australian government was creating legislation that would increase stigma and misinformation.

“HIV thrives on stigma and misinformation. These laws inflame that problem and hinder our prevention efforts. Marginalised communities such as gay and bisexual men, people who inject drugs, and sex workers will be less likely to seek a test for HIV when they see it associated with criminality.

“Part of the case for these laws rests on the discomfort prison officers face when they are spat upon. However, HIV is not transmitted through saliva, destroying one of the key arguments for introducing this legislation.

“The Government has also argued a prison officer may face an anxious three month wait to know if they have contracted HIV. The truth is that modern tests pick up the presence of HIV within six days of exposure. Rapid tests provide highly accurate results within fifteen minutes.” Gunasekera said.

Scott Harlum, the President of the National Association of People with HIV/AIDS (NAPWHA) said the workers the laws were proposed to be protecting were not being told the truth.

“Frontline workers including prison officers need to know they’re being sold a lie and offered nothing but dangerous false reassurance by these proposed laws and any government promoting them.

“There is no mystery in how best to respond to a genuine potential exposure to HIV, such as a needle-stick injury, and that does not include any time wasted or misdirected attention on anybody but the person potentially exposed.” Harlum said.

“In cases where someone faces genuine potential exposure to HIV, such as a needle-stick injury, post-exposure prophylaxis medicine is highly effective at preventing HIV transmission if taken as soon as possible and within 72 hours. Additionally, all front line workers should be protected against hepatitis B through vaccination.

“These laws fail to solve any problem, and only hinder the HIV prevention effort. Likewise, there is no evidence mandatory testing of prisoners will do anything other than further marginalise those living with HIV and other blood borne viruses. Amplifying anxiety and misplaced fear around HIV is simply the wrong thing to do.” Harlum said.

In 2014 the Barnett Liberal government introduced similar laws that relate to police officers. Despite international experts highlighting the laws ignored modern science and would lead to increased stigma the government proceeded with the legislation.

When the laws were introduced then Attorney General Michael Mischin told parliament that it was expected that mandatory testing would only be used on a small number of cases.

However a report released last year by the NAPWHA showed that in just three and half year 387 applications were made to force someone to undertake a test, and only 10 applications were rejected.

Last year Researcher Sally Cameron, one of the authors of the report, told OUTinPerth that the reality is it would be extremely unlikely that a officer could be infected by HIV.

“It’s remarkable that these laws have come in now, when treatments are so good, so many people now have a low undetectable load. The odds of – first of all a policeman coming into contact with someone who has HIV, and then there’s an incident, and that incident could involve the transfer of bodily fluids, and then that that incident could include any risk at all – is already really remote.” Cameron said.

Cameron argued that with the additional option of providing post exposure prophylaxis (PEP) treatment to anyone who has potentially come into contact with HIV, there is almost no possibility of an officer contracting HIV. The last recorded case of a front line worker contracting HIV appears to have occurred in 2002.

It is anticipated that the legislation will be debated in the Legislative Council on Tuesday.

US: Oklahoma passes bill requiring the disclosure of HIV status of the recently deceased

As Epidemic Rages On, Oklahoma Republicans Pass Needlessly Stigmatizing HIV Law

While the number of newly confirmed coronavirus cases in Oklahoma yo-yos between 70 to 100+ each day, the state’s Republican-controlled legislator made it a priority to pass a needlessly stigmatizing law requiring anyone handling human remains to be notified if a recently deceased person is HIV-positive.

Even though the bill is ostensibly meant to reduce possible infections, it’s not exactly clear what made this bill such a priority nearly 40 years after the start of the HIV epidemic. Nevertheless, Republican Oklahoma Governor Kevin Stitt signed House Bill 4041 into law on Thursday and the law will go into effect on November 1, 2020.

The bill seems all the more redundant, according to Allie Shinn, executive director of the LGBTQ advocacy group Freedom Oklahoma, because, as Shinn explains:

“There are already so many guidelines in place for the safety of people who are handling human bodies and human remains. They are adequate safety measures, and they are safety measures that are in place that also treat the body with respect.

What this law would do is not make anybody safer. What it would do is lead to incidents of discrimination and revive tired stereotypes and stigmas that will harm people living with HIV.”

Oklahoma has the 31st highest rate of HIV among all U.S. states. It’s also one of 34 U.S. states with laws criminalizing the sexual behavior of HIV positive people to ostensibly prevent deliberate transmission of the virus. However, such laws were drafted during the panic of the 1980s and ’90s HIV epidemic and are predominantly used to harass and target queer men of color.

Tajikistan: The Criminal Code potentially considers every HIV-positive citizen to be a criminal

How can we save 14,000 Tajiks from the threat of prison and the country from an epidemic?

The Criminal Code potentially considers every HIV-positive citizen to be a criminal, not a person in need of state support.

Why do criminal measures against Tajiks living with HIV contribute to the rapid growth of the HIV/AIDS epidemic in the country? What is the practice in neighbouring countries? And, most importantly, how citizens can protect their rights, the correspondent of “Asia-Plus” understood.

The approach to the fight against HIV in Tajikistan, when law enforcement agencies, not doctors, take over, can have the opposite effect. This is the view of Tajik and international human rights activists, as well as the UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women.

According to the Ministry of Health, more than 14 thousand people with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) live in the country, almost half of whom do not even know about their HIV-positive status, and their number keeps growing.

On November 9, 2018, the UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDOW) issued recommendations to Tajikistan, noting that there are a number of barriers in access to health care, which lead to the rapid spread of HIV.

Thus, paragraph 40 contains a recommendation to decriminalize HIV – complete abolition of Article 125 of the Criminal Code of Tajikistan. In the same year, in 2018, 33 criminal cases were initiated against 26 HIV-positive people, and in 2019 this number was increased by at least 6 more cases. These data were voiced by the prosecutor of Khujand Habibullo Vohidov at the coordination council of law enforcement agencies, on 2 May last year.

Since the beginning of 2020, human rights activists of the Centre for Human Rights and ReACT have already registered two such cases.

Article 125 is no longer in effect.
According to the Global Network of PLHIV (GNP+) Stigma and Discrimination Program Manager Alexandra Volgina, Article 125 of the Criminal Code of Tajikistan is taken from the Soviet legislation and reflects the reality of those years when there were no drugs for the disease. HIV rapidly progressed into AIDS, which was in fact a death sentence.

The first part of the 125th article of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Tajikistan speaks about infecting another person with venereal disease by a person who knew that he had this disease. This is despite the fact that antiretroviral therapy (ARV – ed.) completely eliminates the risk of transmission of the immunodeficiency virus and makes a person with HIV completely safe in terms of virus transmission.

It is important to note that antiretroviral therapy works only against HIV and does not protect against other sexually transmitted infections. Therefore, it is important not to forget about condom use as well.
“Criminalisation in itself is a stigma that society perpetuates in law or practice against people living with HIV. They are treated as criminals by default,” says Mikhail Golichenko, a lawyer and international human rights analyst for the Canadian Legal Network.

By placing all responsibility for preventing the transmission of immunodeficiency virus to people living with HIV, the article on criminalization of HIV, in fact, gives society false hope, misleads society when people think that “if HIV is criminalized, I will be warned in any case,” said the lawyer.

In Tajikistan, the diagnosis of HIV is perceived as a threat. This is a big problem, which under the current global scientific base is simply pointless.

The principle of ‘Undefined=Untransferable’ (if a person with HIV receives treatment, the virus in his blood is reduced to a minimum and then he cannot transmit HIV to his sexual partner) is a long-proven scientific fact and a turning point in the history of the fight against HIV/AIDS.

Thus, today HIV-positive women, while receiving treatment, give birth to healthy children, people with HIV live as long as without it. Families where partners with different HIV statuses, without transmitting the disease to each other, live happily, and this happens not somewhere far away, but in neighboring countries: Russia, Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan.

Women in a trap
Under article 125 of the Criminal Code, women are mainly recruited in Tajikistan. Human rights expert in the aspect of access to HIV prevention and treatment NGO “Center for Human Rights” Larisa Aleksandrova, says about the stereotype inherent in Tajik society – that HIV infection is mainly caused by sex workers.

In fact, according to the National Programme on Combating HIV Epidemic in 2017-2020, HIV prevalence among sex workers is 3.5%.

Heterosexual sex is the main route of HIV transmission in Tajikistan. In some regions, the proportion of such cases reaches 70%.
Larisa Alexandrova shared real examples of violations of women’s rights from the practice of lawyers of the NGO “Center for Human Rights” Zebo Kasymova and Dilafruz Samadova.

In order to protect personal data, no names are given.

Punishment without a crime
“A 41-year-old resident of Khatlon province was previously convicted under part 2 of article 125 of the Criminal Code and was sentenced to one year in prison in 2018. By court order, she was released early in 9 months due to poor health.

But already in 2019 the woman was repeatedly detained. A criminal case was initiated against her in the same episodes as in 2018. None of the sexual partners in the case were found to be HIV-positive, neither in 2018 nor in 2019. However, the court found the woman guilty again, only under Part 1 of Article 125 of the Criminal Code she was sentenced to 1 year in prison. Under article 71 of the Criminal Code, the court did not impose a suspended sentence, but gave her a probationary period for correction, but under control of her behavior.

Expert opinion: Analysis of this case, according to the lawyer, revealed a low level of professionalism of law enforcement officials, both in terms of knowledge of HIV and in legal proceedings. The reopening of a case on the same episode, on the same facts of a criminal case against a person is a direct violation of the Constitution of Tajikistan and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the expert assures.

– The woman served 9 months for the first time, and under Part 2 of Article 125 of the Criminal Code. Initially, the wrong norm was applied, as Part 2 says about HIV infection. But none of the sexual partners was found to have HIV. Accordingly, there should have been part 1, – sums up Larisa Alexandrova.

A trial without a victim.
“A resident of Khujand, who injected drugs, volunteered for an NGO. A criminal case was initiated on 11 October 2018 under part 1 of article 125 of the Criminal Code. The victims of this case were male. During the trial the man stated that he did not agree with the fact that he was recognized as a victim.

After the initiation of the criminal case on the basis of the commission expert opinion, it was found that the man did not have HIV. At the trial, the lawyer asked questions: “Did the defendant offer to use a condom during sexual intercourse?”, to which the man answered:

“Yes, but I refused. I know that she has this disease, but nevertheless, I love her, I will live with her, I have no complaints or demands to her”.
The legislation of the Republic of Tajikistan refers Article 125 part 1 to the cases of private and public prosecution, which means that these cases are initiated at the request of the victim of the crime, but in case of reconciliation with the accused, the proceedings are not terminated. Despite this, the defendant was sentenced to one year and two months’ deprivation of liberty under article 125, part 1, of the Criminal Code.

Expert opinion: In this case, the person was put in jail despite the fact that she had good medical data. In addition, her sexual partner knew that she had HIV. He did not even submit any application. In that case, the case should have been initiated at least by the prosecutor, not the internal affairs system. And we don’t know who reported this case, either. In this case, the procedure for instituting criminal proceedings and the defendant’s procedural rights were also violated.

The investigator did not even let the attorney or the person under investigation see the indictment. The indictment was presented to the lawyer who defended the woman for the first time at the request of the police. Later the defendant refused to defend him, and she was represented by a lawyer from the NGO “Center for Human Rights”. The lawyer filed a complaint against the investigator with the prosecutor’s office, but the prosecutor’s office found no violations.

The judge did not pay attention to all these violations and passed a sentence, comments the expert Aleksandrova. The case was appealed both to the cassation and supervisory authorities, but the judges considered that there were no violations.

International expert Mikhail Golichenko explained what “knowingly” means from the legal point of view.

Part 1 of Article 125 of the Criminal Code of Tajikistan provides for liability for knowingly putting another person in danger of contracting the human immunodeficiency virus. This article does not provide for such a sign as “infection”. In other words, putting another person in danger of infection is sufficient.

The word “knowingly”, interpreted by lawyer Mikhail Golichenko, means that a person knew in advance about the presence of HIV. Being put in danger, without infection itself, means that the crime is a formal one.

For comparison, the Criminal Code of the Republic of Tajikistan also has actions with the material composition, where the obligatory sign is the public dangerous consequences. For example, murder is a material composition, as for the completed composition it is necessary to have such socially dangerous consequences as the death of a person.

For crimes with formal composition, the only form of guilt can only be direct intent. If a person was aware of public danger of his or her action (inaction) and wanted to commit exactly these actions. If there are signs in the case that, for example, the sexual intercourse without a condom was due to fear of violence by the partner, at the request of the partner. Or for other reasons, which give grounds to conclude that there is no desire to put in danger the infection, it is impossible to prosecute under paragraph 1 of Art. 125 of the Criminal Code. There is no necessary element of the crime – guilt in the form of direct intent.

“No treatment, no punishment”: expert recommendations for Tajikistan
Lawyer Mikhail Golichenko and international human rights expert Aleksandra Volgina are sure that Article 125 is not needed, because intentional HIV transmission is the most likely. In addition, this article is covered by another article of the Criminal Code of Tajikistan – “On causing harm to health”. They are convinced that all parts 1, 2, 3 of Article 125 of the Criminal Code of Tajikistan have long lost their relevance.

In itself, the existence of special responsibility for HIV infection is the stigma attached to people living with HIV as enshrined in the criminal law. And in this sense, Article 125 of the Criminal Code of RT plays a negative role in HIV prevention. In this regard, the best option would be to abolish this norm completely. For rare cases of intentional HIV infection it is possible to apply Article 111 of the Criminal Code of Tajikistan on the liability for intentional harm to health of average gravity.

According to Tatiana Deshko, director of international programs in the Public Health Alliance, in Tajikistan it is necessary to bring medical issues under the control of physicians.

– Let’s look at the results of the “work” of this criminal code article. In Tajikistan, more than one million HIV tests were conducted in 2019, and just over 1,000 new HIV cases were identified – that’s very little. People who have a real risk and HIV infection are simply afraid to be tested. That is not surprising, and it happens everywhere.

“Imagine that you would be isolated for the coronovirus not at home or in a hospital, but in an isolation ward and prison. “Then why would you be tested? Still, medical issues should be dealt with by doctors, not the police – then everything would be in its place and we would become healthier,” says Tatiana Deshko.
Thus, Larisa Aleksandrova said that the telephone hotline of the NGO “Center for Human Rights” also began to be contacted by forensic medical experts on gender reassignment and documents of title for transgender people. Such cooperation began to take shape after trainings for some judges: they begin to refer people living with HIV, who are accused under Article 125 of the Criminal Code, for legal assistance. This suggests that the information and scientifically proven arguments are obvious, as well as the fact that the authorities, receiving more information, are ready to contribute in every way to the reasonable support of human rights.

“The Global Fund confirms its readiness to continue supporting Tajikistan’s efforts in the fight against AIDS in implementing an effective response to HIV based on scientific evidence,” said Alexandrina Iovita, Human Rights Adviser, Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria to Asia Plus.
– The focus of these activities is to prevent new cases, increase ARV coverage and reduce barriers to human rights violations faced by key populations in accessing services. Evidence and recommendations from technical partners such as UNAIDS and UNDP indicate that overly broad criminalization of HIV prevents people from getting tested and starting ARVs and jeopardizes adherence.

We welcome the increasing focus on public health rather than on punitive approaches. It is public health that is based on effective and humane interventions that are essential when comparing resources spent and results obtained.

Where to go for help for people living with HIV?
The Republic has organizations that provide support and advice to people living with HIV in difficult circumstances. These are SPIN-plus and the Network of Women Living with HIV in Tajikistan.

As for legal assistance, in Tajikistan there is a hotline of NGO “Center for Human Rights”, +992933557755.

“In just 4 months (October 2019-January 2020), 60 people (21 men, 36 women and 3 transgender people) contacted the hotline,” said Larisa Alexandrova.
Any person in a difficult situation due to HIV can contact the hotline and receive free legal advice and / or support for representation in courts, state agencies.

Lawyers who have not previously dealt with such cases, recommended international human rights activist Mikhail Golichenko, should consult with experienced lawyers in advance. Special organizations, such as the Center for Human Rights in Tajikistan, can be contacted to explain what to do in different situations.

You can’t try to do something on your own, better involve allies and organize protection. Lawyers must be clear about what evidence they need to gather in order to do so.

UNAIDS states unequivocally that there is no evidence to support the effectiveness of criminal law enforcement for HIV transmission in preventing HIV transmission. Rather, it undermines public health goals and the protection of human rights. UNAIDS commends country initiatives to review such legislation and repeal it.

Как спасти 14 тысяч таджиков от угрозы тюрьмы, а страну – от эпидемии?

УГОЛОВНЫЙ КОДЕКС РТ КАЖДОГО ВИЧ-ПОЗИТИВНОГО ГРАЖДАНИНА ПОТЕНЦИАЛЬНО РАССМАТРИВАЕТ КАК ПРЕСТУПНИКА, А НЕ ЧЕЛОВЕКА, НУЖДАЮЩЕГОСЯ В ПОДДЕРЖКЕ ГОСУДАРСТВА

Почему уголовные меры против таджиков, живущих с ВИЧ, способствуют стремительному росту эпидемии ВИЧ/СПИДа в стране? Какая практика у соседних стран? И, главное, как гражданам защищать свои права, разбирался корреспондент «Азия-Плюс».

Подход в борьбе с ВИЧ в Таджикистане, когда за дело берутся правоохранители, а не врачи, может дать обратный эффект. Так считают таджикские и международные правозащитники, а также комитет ООН по ликвидации дискриминации в отношении женщин.

По информации Минздрава РТ в стране проживает более 14 тыс. людей с вирусом иммунодефицита человека (ВИЧ), почти половина которых, даже не подозревает о своём ВИЧ-положительном статусе, и их число продолжает расти.

9 ноября 2018 года, комитет ООН по ликвидации дискриминации в отношении женщин (CEDOW) опубликовал рекомендации в адрес Таджикистана, отметив наличие ряда барьеров в доступе к здравоохранению, которые приводят к стремительному распространению ВИЧ.

Так, в пункте 40 содержится рекомендация по декриминализации ВИЧ – полной отмене статьи 125 Уголовного кодекса РТ. В том же 2018 году было возбуждено 33 уголовных дела в отношении 26 ВИЧ-позитивных людей, а в 2019 году к этому числу прибавилось еще, как минимум, 6 дел. Эти данные озвучил прокурор Худжанда Хабибулло Вохидов на координационном совете правоохранительных органов, 2 мая прошлого года.

С начала 2020 года правозащитники ОО «Центра по правам человека» и ReACT зарегистрировали уже 2 таких кейса.

125-я статья уже не работает

По словам менеджера программ по стигме и дискриминации Глобальной Сети ЛЖВ (GNP+) Александры Волгиной, 125 статья в Уголовном кодексе Таджикистана взята из советского законодательства и отражает реальность тех лет, когда еще не было лекарств от этого заболевания. ВИЧ быстро прогрессировал в состояние СПИДа, что являлось фактически смертельным приговором.

Первая часть 125-й статьи УК РТ говорит о заражении другого лица венерической болезнью лицом, знавшим о наличии у него этой болезни. Это притом, что антиретровирусная терапия (АРВ, – ред.) полностью устраняет риск передачи вируса иммунодефицита и делает человека с ВИЧ совершенно безопасным в плане передачи вируса.

Важно отметить, что эта АРВ терапия работает только против ВИЧ и не защищает от других инфекций, передающихся половым путем. Поэтому важно не забывать и об использовании презерватива.

«Сама по себе криминализация — клеймо, которое общество закрепляет в законе или в практике против людей, живущих с ВИЧ. Они рассматриваются как преступники, по умолчанию», – говорит Михаил Голиченко, адвокат, международный аналитик по правам человека Канадской правовой сети.

Возлагая всю ответственность за профилактику передачивируса иммунодефицита на людей, живущих с ВИЧ, статья о криминализации ВИЧ, по сути, дает обществу ложную надежду, вводит общество в заблуждение, когда люди думают, что «если ВИЧ криминализовано, то меня в любом случае предупредят», – отмечает адвокат.

В Таджикистане диагноз «ВИЧ» воспринимается как угроза. Это большая проблема, которая при существующей мировой научной базе просто бессмысленна.

Принцип “Неопределяемый=Непередаваемый” (если человек с ВИЧ получает лечение, у него в крови вирус снижается до минимума и тогда он не может передать ВИЧ половому партнеру) – давно доказанный научный факт и переломный момент в истории борьбы с ВИЧ/СПИДом.

Так, сегодня ВИЧ-положительные женщины, принимая лечение, рожают здоровых детей, люди с ВИЧ живут так же долго, как и без него. Семьи, где партнеры с разными ВИЧ статусами, не передавая болезнь друг другу, живут счастливо, и это происходит не где-то далеко, а в соседних странах: России, Кыргызстане, Казахстане и Узбекистане.

Женщины в западне

В Таджикистане по 125-й статье Уголовного кодекса РТ в основном привлекаются женщины. Эксперт по правам человека в аспекте доступа к профилактике и лечению ВИЧ ОО «Центра по правам человека» Лариса Александрова, говорит о стереотипе, присущем таджикскому обществу – о том, что заражают ВИЧ-инфекцией в основном секс-работницы.

На самом деле, по данным Национальной программы по противодействию эпидемии ВИЧ на 2017-2020 гг. распространенность ВИЧ среди секс-работниц – 3,5%.

Гетеросексуальные половые контакты – основной путь передачи ВИЧ в Таджикистане. В ряде регионов доля таких случаев достигает 70%.

Лариса Александрова поделилась реальными примерами нарушения прав женщин из практики адвокатов ОО «Центра по правам человека» Зебо Касымовой и Дилафруз Самадовой.

В целях защиты персональных данных, имена не указываются.

Наказание без преступления

«41-летняя жительница Хатлонской области ранее была судима по ч.2 статьи 125 УК РТ и приговором суда в 2018 году была осуждена на год лишения свободы. Постановлением суда через 9 месяцев освобождена досрочно в связи с плохим состоянием здоровья.

Но уже 2019 году женщина была повторно задержана. В отношении неё было возбуждено уголовное делопо тем же эпизодам, что и в 2018 году. Ни у одного из проходящих по делу половых партнёров не было выявлено ВИЧ, ни в 2018, ни в 2019году. Однако суд повторно признал женщину виновной, только уже по ч.1 статьи 125 УК РТ ей назначали 1 год лишения свободы. Суд на основании статьи 71 УК РТ условно не применил наказание, а дал ей испытательный срок для исправления, но в условиях контроля за её поведением».

Мнение экспертов: Анализ данного кейса, по словам адвоката, выявил низкий уровень профессионализма сотрудников правоохранительных органов, как по знанию особенностей ВИЧ, так и по судопроизводству. Повторное возбуждение делапо одному и тому же эпизоду, по тем же фактам уголовного дела против человека – прямое нарушение Конституции РТ и Международного пакта о гражданских и политических правах, уверяет эксперт.

– Женщина первый раз отсидела 9 месяцев, причём по части 2 ст.125 УК РТ. Изначально была применена неправильная норма, так как часть 2 говорит о заражении ВИЧ. Но ни у одного из половых партнеров не был обнаружен ВИЧ. Соответственно должна была быть часть 1, — резюмирует Лариса Александрова.

Суд без потерпевшего

«Жительница г. Худжанд, употреблявшая инъекционные наркотики, работала волонтёром в НПО. Уголовное дело было возбуждено 11 октября 2018 года по ч.1. статьи 125 УК РТ. Потерпевшим по этому делу проходил мужчина. В ходе судебного процесса мужчина заявил, что он не согласен с тем, что его признали потерпевшим.

После возбуждения уголовного дела на основании заключения комиссионной экспертизы, было выявлено, что у мужчины отсутствует ВИЧ. На суде были заданы вопросы со стороны адвоката: «Предлагала ли подзащитная использовать презерватив при половом контакте?», на что мужчина ответил:

«Да, но я отказался. Я знаю, что у неё есть это заболевание, но, тем не менее, я люблю её, буду с ней жить, не имею к ней претензии и требований».

Законодательство Республики Таджикистан относит статью 125 часть 1 к делам частно-публичного обвинения, это означает, что эти дела возбуждаются по заявлению лица, пострадавшего от преступления, но в случае примирения его с обвиняемым производство по ним не подлежит прекращению. Несмотря на это, в отношении подсудимой был вынесен приговор – 1 год 2 месяца лишения свободы по ч.1 статьи 125 УК РТ».

Мнение экспертов: В этом случае, человека посадили, несмотря на то, что у неё были хорошие медицинские данные. К тому же о наличии у неё ВИЧ половой партнёр знал. Он даже не подавал никакого заявления. В таком случае дело должно было быть возбуждено, как минимум прокурором, а не системой внутренних дел. И кто сообщил об этом кейсе тоже неизвестно. В данном кейсе был нарушен и порядок возбуждения уголовного, дела и процессуальные права подсудимой женщины.

Следователь даже не дал ознакомиться с обвинительным заключением ни адвокату, ни самой подследственной. Обвинительное заключение было представлено адвокату, которая защищала женщину впервые дни по запросу органов милиции. В впоследствии подсудимаяот его защиты отказалась, и ей был представлен адвокат от ОО «Центр по правам человека». Адвокатом была подана жалоба на следователя в прокуратуру, но прокуратура не нашла никаких нарушений.

Судья не обратил внимания на все эти нарушения и вынес приговор, комментирует эксперт Александрова. Дело было обжаловано и в кассационную, и надзорную инстанции, но и там судьи посчитали, что нарушений нет.

Что значит «заведомо» – с юридической точки зрения объяснил международный эксперт Михаил Голиченко.

Часть 1 ст. 125 УК Таджикистана предусматривает ответственность за заведомоепоставление другого лица в опасность заражения вирусом иммунодефицита человека. В этой статье не предусмотрен такой признак как «заражение». То есть самой постановки в опасность заражения достаточно.

Слово «заведомо», толкует юрист Михаил Голиченко, означает, что человек заранее знал о наличии у него ВИЧ. Поставление в опасность, без наступления самого заражения, означает, что состав преступления формальный.

Для сравнения, в УК РТ также есть действия с материальным составом, где обязательным признаком выступают общественно-опасные последствия. Например, убийство – материальный состав, так как для оконченного состава необходимо наступление такого общественно-опасного последствия, как смерть человека.

Для преступлений с формальным составом единственной формой вины может быть только прямой умысел. Если человек осознавал общественную опасность своего действия (бездействия) и желал совершить именно эти действия. Если в деле есть признаки того, что, например, половой акт без презерватива был по причине страха насилия со стороны партнёра, по просьбе самого партнёра. Либо по другим причинам, которые дают основания для вывода об отсутствии желания поставить в опасность заражения, то привлечь к ответственности по части 1 ст. 125 УК РТ нельзя. Отсутствует необходимый элемент состава преступления – вина в форме прямого умысла.

«Лечить, нельзя наказывать»: рекомендации экспертов для Таджикистана

Адвокат Михаил Голиченко и международный эксперт по правам человека Александра Волгина уверены, что статья 125 не нужна, потому что умышленная передача ВИЧ –редчайшая вероятность. К тому же эта статьяохваченадругой статьей УК Таджикистана – «О причинении вреда здоровью». Они убеждены, все части 1,2,3 ст. 125 УК РТ давно утратили свою актуальность.

Само по себе наличие специальной ответственности за заражение ВИЧ является закрепленной в уголовном законе стигмой по отношению к людям, живущим с ВИЧ. И в этом смысле ст. 125 УК РТ играет негативную роль в вопросах профилактики ВИЧ-инфекции. В этой связи лучшим вариантом была бы отмена данной нормы полностью. Для редких случаев умышленного заражения ВИЧ возможно применении ст. 111 УК РТ об ответственности за умышленное причинение вреда здоровью средней тяжести.

По мнению Татьяны Дешко, директора международных программ в Альянсе общественного здоровья, в Таджикистане необходимо дать медицинские вопросы под контроль медиков.

– Давайте посмотрим на результаты «работы» этой статьи уголовного кодекса. В Таджикистане в 2019 году проведено более миллиона тестов на ВИЧ-инфекцию, а выявлено чуть больше 1 тыс новых случаев ВИЧ – это очень мало. Люди, которые имеют реальный риск и ВИЧ-инфекцию, просто боятся тестироваться. Неудивительно и так происходит везде.

“Представьте, что за короновирус вас бы изолировали не дома или в больнице, а в изоляторе и тюрьме. Пошли бы вы тогда тестироваться? Все-таки медицинскими вопросами должны заниматься врачи, а не полиция, – тогда все станет на свои места и станем здоровее”, – говорит Татьяна Дешко.

Так, Лариса Александрова рассказала, что на телефон горячей линии ОО «Центр по правам человека» начали обращаться также и сотрудники судебно-медицинской экспертизы по поводу изменения пола и правоустанавливающих документов по трансгендерным людям. Такое сотрудничество начало складываться после проведения тренингов для некоторых судей: они начинают перенаправлять людей, живущих с ВИЧ, которые обвиняются по ст.125 УК РТ, за правовой помощью. Это говорит о том, что информирование и научно доказанные аргументы очевидны, а также о том, что представители власти, получая больше информации готовы всячески способствовать разумному сопровождению прав человека.

«Глобальный фонд подтверждает свою готовность продолжать поддержку деятельности Таджикистана в борьбе со СПИДом в применении эффективных мер ответа на ВИЧ, основанных на научно-доказанных данных, – сказала «Азия-Плюс» Александрина Иовита, советник по правам человека, Глобального фонда для борьбы со СПИДом, туберкулёзом и малярией.

– Фокус этой деятельности направлен на предотвращение новых случаев, расширение охвата АРВ и снижение барьеров, связанных с нарушением прав человека, с которыми сталкиваются представители ключевых групп в контексте получения доступа к услугам. Фактические данные и рекомендации от технических партнеров, таких, как ЮНЭЙДС и ПРООН, указывают на то, что чрезмерно широкая криминализация ВИЧ не позволяет людям проходить тестирование и начинать АРВ, а также ставит под угрозу приверженность.

Мы приветствуем все больший фокус на общественном здравоохранении, а не на карательных подходах. Именно общественное здравоохранение основано на эффективных и гуманных мерах, представляющих большую значимость при сравнении затраченных ресурсов и полученных результатов».

Куда обратиться за помощью людям, живущим с ВИЧ?

В республике работают организации, которые оказывают поддержку и консультирование людям, живущим с ВИЧ, оказавшимся в сложных жизненных обстоятельствах. Это СПИН-плюс и Сеть женщин, живущих с ВИЧ в Таджикистане.

Что касается правовой помощи, в Таджикистане работает горячая линия ОО «Центра по правам человека», +992933557755

«Только за 4 месяца (октябрь 2019-январь 2020) на горячую линию обратились 60 человек (21 мужчина, 36 женщин и 3 трансгендерных человека)», – говорит Лариса Александрова.

Любой человек, оказавшись в сложной ситуации, в связи с ВИЧ, может обратиться на горячую линию и получить бесплатно правовую консультацию и/или поддержку по представительству в судах, государственных органах.

Адвокаты, которые ранее не занимались подобными делами, рекомендует международный правозащитник Михаил Голиченко, должны заранее проконсультироваться с опытными юристами. Можно обратиться в специальные организации – такие как ОО «Центр по правам человека в Таджикистане», чтобы им могли разъяснить, как быть в разных ситуациях.

Нельзя пытаться что-то делать своими силами, лучше привлечь союзников и организовать защиту. Адвокат должен четко знать, какие доказательства для этого необходимо собрать.

ЮНЭЙДС однозначно заявляет, что нет никаких данных, подтверждающих эффективность применения уголовного законодательства в отношении передачи ВИЧ – для предотвращения передачи ВИЧ. Наоборот, такое применение подрывает цели общественного здравоохранения и защиту прав человека. ЮНЭЙДС высоко оценивает инициативы стран по пересмотру такого законодательства и его отмене.

Poland: Country’s Criminal Code amended to increase sentencing in cases of HIV exposure

New round of HIV criminalization in Poland

New round of HIV criminalization in Poland

This week, Polish President Andrzej Duda signed a law amending the country’s Criminal Code. Its content, coupled with other measures to combat COVID-19, was originally intended to create better conditions for overcoming the crisis. However, despite this, it, without any justification or prior approval, also included a number of provisions regarding the intensification of the criminalization of HIV.

According to the comments of activists familiar with the situation, the following amendments were made to the law of June 6, 1997 – the Polish Criminal Code :

“1) Article 161 is replaced by the following:

Section 161.

§ 1. Any person who knows that he is infected with HIV and exposes another person to the risk of infection shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of 6 months to 8 years.

§ 2. Any person knowing that he suffers from a venereal or [other] contagious disease, a serious chronic disease or a disease that threatens his life, and exposing the other person to the risk of infection, shall be punished by imprisonment of 3 months to 6 years.

§ 3. If the person who committed the act specified in § 2 exposes many people to the risk of infection, he shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of 1 to 10 years.

§ 4. The prosecution of a crime referred to in § 1 or § 2 takes place at the request of the victim. ”

According to experts, the changes made to the Criminal Code have significantly tightened the forms and methods of combating people living with chronic diseases, including HIV infection. Previously , according to them, the same acts were punished:

In paragraph 1, by imprisonment for a term of up to 3 years.
In subsection 2, a fine, restriction of liberty or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 1 year.
The provisions of § 3 have not previously been applied.

Regardless, since 2015, sentences of imprisonment (a fine or restriction of liberty) have been applied to all crimes established by this article of the Criminal Code. Thus, in the case of the offenses referred to in § 1 and § 2, the punishment, in addition to the fine and restriction of liberty, could also entail a real prison term.

It should be noted that according to experts, the criminalization of HIV throughout the world continues to be a serious barrier to the effective fight against infection. By exacerbating stigma and discrimination and counteracting the prevention, testing, treatment and care of people living with HIV, regulations that act as tools for criminalization are most often written or applied based on a false or outdated perception of the virus, and in particular about ways to transmit it.

Criminal or administrative prosecutions most often relate to activities where the risk of HIV transmission is negligible or completely absent, including: vaginal and anal sex, provided that “positive” partner uses uncontrolled contraception or undetectable viral load, oral sex, breastfeeding, bites, scratches spitting.

As of 2019, global monitoring has shown that a total of 75 countries (103 jurisdictions) have HIV-specific laws or determine HIV infection as a disease that is relevant to the law.

As of December 31, 2018, in 29 countries there were cases of applying HIV-specific laws, in 37 countries – general criminal or similar laws to HIV +, and in 6 – the use of both.

In more than three years of observation in 49 countries, at least 913 arrests, prosecutions, appeals and / or acquittals have occurred. The largest number of cases was recorded in Russia (314), Belarus (249) and the USA (158).

An analysis of the manifestations of criminalization shows that prosecution, aggravated by discrimination, most often affects precisely marginalized groups of the population, including drug users, ethnic minorities with a different gender identity or sexual orientation, uncertain immigration status, homeless people, sex -workers and others

Meanwhile, over the past few years, promising changes have taken place in the jurisdictions of many countries, especially those dealing with office work.

So, on January 1, 2019, in six countries of the world, precedent cases were established when the application of the law is limited by the data of modern science. Since 2016, 2 laws on the criminalization of HIV were repealed, 2 more were declared unconstitutional, 7 laws were changed, and at least 4 more bills were recalled.

Last month, it became known that the Legislative Assembly of Washington (USA) approved a bill that transferred to the administrative plane an offense related to the deliberate exposure of a person to the risk of sexual transmission of HIV. The previously mentioned act qualified as criminal and could entail a real criminal punishment.

Новый виток криминализации ВИЧ в Польше

На этой неделе президентом Польши Анджеем Дуда был подписан закон о внесении изменений в Уголовный кодекс страны. Его содержание вкупе с иными мерами по борьбе с COVID-19, изначально было призвано создать лучшие условия для преодоления кризисной ситуации. Однако, несмотря на это, оно без каких-либо оснований и предварительных согласований, также включило в себя ряд положений, касающихся усиления криминализации ВИЧ.

Согласно комментариям активистов, знакомых с ситуацией, в закон от 6 июня 1997 года – Уголовный кодекс Польши – были внесены следующие изменения:

«1) статья 161 заменяется следующей:

Статья 161.

§ 1. Любой человек, зная, что он инфицирован ВИЧ и подвергая другого человека риску инфицирования, подлежит наказанию в виде лишения свободы на срок от 6 месяцев до 8 лет.

§ 2. Любой человек, зная, что он страдает венерическим или [иным] контагиозным заболеванием, серьезным хроническим заболеванием или болезнью, которая угрожает его жизни, и подвергая другого человека риску инфицирования, подлежит наказанию в виде лишения свободы на срок от 3 месяцев до 6 лет.

§ 3. Если лицо, совершившее деяние, указанное в § 2, подвергает многих людей риску инфицирования, оно подлежит наказанию в виде лишения свободы на срок от 1 до 10 лет.

§ 4. Преследование за преступление, указанное в § 1 или § 2, происходит по ходатайству потерпевшего.»

Как отмечают специалисты, внесенные в УК изменения заметно ужесточили формы и методы борьбы с людьми, живущими с хроническими заболеваниями, в том числе ВИЧ-инфекцией. Ранее, по их словам, те же деяния наказывались:

В части § 1 – лишением свободы на срок до 3 лет.
В части § 2 – штрафом, ограничением свободы или лишением свободы на срок до 1 года.
Положения § 3 ранее не применялись.

Независимо от этого, с 2015 года наказания в виде лишения свободы (штрафа или ограничения свободы) применялись ко всем установленным данной статьей УК преступлениям. Таким образом, в случае правонарушений, указанных в § 1 и § 2, наказание, помимо штрафа и ограничения свободы, могло также повлечь за собой и реальноый тюремный срок.

Отметим, что по данным специалистов, криминализация ВИЧ во всем мире продолжает оставаться серьезным барьером для эффективной борьбы с инфекцией. Усугубляя стигму и дискриминацию и противодействуя профилактике, тестированию, лечению и уходу за людьми, живущими с ВИЧ, нормативные акты, которые действуют в качестве инструмента криминализации, чаще всего написаны или применяются на основании ложного или устаревшего представления о вирусе, и, в частности, о способах его передачи.

Уголовное или административное преследование чаще всего касается действий, где риск передачи ВИЧ незначителен или полностью отсутствует, в том числе: вагинальный и анальный секс при условии использования барьерной контрацепции или неопределяемой вирусной нагрузки у «позитивного» партнера, оральный секс, кормление грудью, укусы, царапины, плевки.

По сотоянию на 2019 год глобальный мониторинг показал, что в общей сложности 75 стран мира (103 юрисдикции) имеют ВИЧ-специфические законы или определяют ВИЧ-инфекцию релевантным для права заболеванием.

По состоянию на 31 декабря 2018 года в 29 странах имели место случаи применения ВИЧ-специфических законов, в 37 странах – общих уголовных или подобных им законов к ВИЧ+, и в 6 – использование тех и других.

За более чем три года наблюдений в 49 странах произошло не менее 913 арестов, судебных преследований, апелляций и / или оправдательных приговоров. Наибольшее количество случаев было зарегистрировано в России (314), Беларуси (249) и США (158).

Анализ вариантов проявления криминализации показывает, что судебное преследование, усугубляемое дискриминацией, чаще всего затрагивает именно маргинализированные группы населения, в том числе, лиц, употребляющих наркотики, относящихся к этническим меньшинствам, имеющих иную гендерную идентичность или сексуальную ориентацию, неопределенный иммиграционный статус, бездомных, секс-работниц и др.

Между тем в течение ряда последних лет в юрисдикциях многих стран, особенно касающихся делопроизводства, произошли многообещающие изменения.

Так, на 1 января 2019 года в шести странах мира были установлены прецедентные случаи, когда применение закона ограничивается данными современной науки. С 2016 года 2 закона о криминализации ВИЧ были отменены, еще 2 – признаны неконституционными, 7 законов – изменены, и еще минимум 4 законопроекта – отозваны.

В минувшем месяце стало известно, что законодательное собрание штата Вашингтон (США) одобрило законопроект, который перевел в административную плоскость правонарушение, связанное с умышленным подвержением лица риску половой передачи ВИЧ. Ранее указанное деяние квалифицировалось как преступное и могло повлечь за собой реальное уголовное наказание.

US: New report by the Williams Institute found one arrest for an HIV crime for every 60 people living with HIV in Missouri

Missouri’s HIV criminalization laws have impacted nearly 600 people

For Immediate Release
February 26, 2020

Media Contact
Rachel Dowd
dowd@law.ucla.edu
(310) 206-8982 (office) | (310) 855-2696 (cell)

The cost of incarceration related to these crimes, to date, is $17.7 million.

Between 1990 and 2019, at least 593 people were arrested under Missouri laws that criminalize people living with HIV and hepatitis B and C, according to a new report by the Williams Institute at UCLA School of Law. Of those, 318 people were convicted for the crimes with average sentences ranging from 2.9 to 10 years. To date, the estimated cost of incarceration related to HIV/hepatitis crimes is $17.7 million.

Using data obtained from the Missouri State Highway Patrol (MSHP) – Criminal Justice Information Services, researchers found that HIV/hepatitis criminalization laws were enforced in 70 of Missouri’s 114 counties. However, enforcement was heavily concentrated in a smaller subset of counties. In addition, the report shows that HIV/hepatitis crimes are disproportionately enforced on the basis of race and sex, with Black men being the most likely to be arrested and convicted.

HIV/hepatitis criminalization is a term used to describe laws that either criminalize otherwise legal conduct or increase the penalties for illegal conduct based upon a person’s positive status. More than two-thirds of U.S. states and territories have enacted HIV criminal laws. Missouri has five laws that criminalize different types of exposure, including three HIV-specific laws and two laws for exposure to HIV or hepatitis in connection with the Department of Corrections and the Department of Mental Health (DOC/DMH).

“Violations of these laws are all felonies. They do not require that the defendant actually infect anyone—or intend to infect anyone—and they include behaviors that pose no or little risk of transmission,” said lead author Brad Sears, Distinguished Scholar of Law and Policy at the Williams Institute. “These laws are disproportionately enforced against already vulnerable communities and aren’t preventing the spread of HIV and hepatitis.”

FINDINGS

HIV Crimes

Missouri has one arrest for an HIV crime for every 60 people living with HIV in the state.
HIV crimes appear to be disproportionately enforced in the Saint Louis HIV Care Region, particularly in St. Louis City and St. Louis counties. While the St. Louis HIV Care region has 48.3% of people living with HIV in Missouri, it has 61.0% of all HIV criminal incidents.
Black men make up 5.5% of the state’s population and 35% of people living with HIV in the state. They make up over half of those with an HIV incident (50.2%) or conviction (54.2%).

Department of Corrections/Department of Mental Health Crimes

Over 99% of all 398 people arrested under DOC/DMH laws, 396 people, were arrested for exposing an employee or someone else connected with the Department of Corrections to bodily fluids.
St. Francois, Mississippi, and Texas counties have 3.6% of Missouri’s incarcerated populations but represent 33.6% of all DOC/DMH incidents.
Black men make up 5.5% of the state’s population and 32% of people who are incarcerated in the state. They make up 41.7% of those with a DOC/DMH criminal incident and 45% of those who have been convicted of these crimes.

Lawmakers in Missouri filed a bill in 2020 to revise the state’s HIV criminalization laws. A hearing on the bill is expected in March.

This study was funded through a generous grant from the Elton John AIDS Foundation.

Read the report

Russia: New bill proposed on the deportation of migrants with “dangerous” diseases, including HIV

The State Duma may pass a law on the expulsion of migrants with dangerous diseases

The Ministry of Internal Affairs has prepared a bill on the expulsion of migrants with dangerous diseases. Including with coronavirus. The decision on deportation will also be made by the Ministry of Health, the FSB and the bodies of sanitary and epidemiological surveillance. They must coordinate their actions with the Ministry of Justice. At the same time, it is necessary to provide sick people with treatment, accompaniment and transportation.
In addition to coronavirus, the list also includes plague, cholera, tuberculosis, HIV and anthrax. The document, according to the channel “Russia 24”, will be presented to the Cabinet in March, the State Duma will consider it in May.

Госдума может принять закон о выдворении мигрантов с опасными болезнями

МВД подготовило законопроект о порядке выдворения мигрантов с опасными заболеваниями. В том числе, с коронавирусом. Решение о депортации будут также принимать Минздрав, ФСБ и органы санитарно-эпидемиологического надзора. Свои действия они должны согласовывать с Минюстом. Заболевшим, при этом, необходимо предоставить лечение, сопровождение и перевозку.

Кроме коронавируса, в списке также чума, холера, туберкулез, ВИЧ и сибирская язва. Документ, по данным телеканала “Россия 24”, представят кабмину в марте, Госдума рассмотрит его в мае.

Russia: 23 year-old Kazakh woman, who has lived in Russia since she was 3, expelled because she was diagnosed with HIV

Kazakh woman expelled from Russia due to HIV

Kazakh woman expelled from Russia due to HIV

She will have to leave her husband, home and work in the Sverdlovsk region to get a chance for free therapy and life.

A native of Kazakhstan, who has been living in Russia for 20 years, is being expelled from the country due to HIV, e1.ru reports .

Svetlana is 23 years old. 20 of them she lived in a small town near Yekaterinburg. And was born in Kazakhstan. And the passport is also a citizen of Kazakhstan. This fall, for the first time in many years, she was not able to extend RVP (temporary residence permit in Russia), because she was diagnosed with HIV during the routine testing of these papers.

– In our country, Federal Law No. 38 “On Preventing the Spread of HIV in Russia” is in force, it contains article 11, which states that all foreigners who have been diagnosed with HIV should be immediately deported from the country. They “carry a danger to humanity,” this law says. There is a chance to stay in the country, but it is very small. If the parents, children or the spouse of the foreigner are citizens of the Russian Federation, and the foreigner himself can prove that he will not constitute a threat of spreading the infection, then the court can guarantee yourself the right to life in Russia, ”commented the lawyer of the New Life Foundation (NPO, which helps people living with HIV in the Urals) Marina Chukavina.

However, as they say in the fund itself, most often the situation is different. Migrants simply go into an illegal situation, and they buy drugs that they need to take for life and which the government provides to Russian citizens for free, at the pharmacy. On average, illegal immigrants have to spend 7-10 thousand rubles a month on antiretroviral therapy.

– Deportation is pointless in the economic, and even in the epidemiological sense. Obviously, in most cases, foreigners do not bring HIV, but become infected here. The highest HIV prevalence across the entire region of Eastern Europe and Central Asia today is in Russia. Why this norm today is not clear at all. But for migrants with HIV, it makes life difficult. If we talk about the citizens of Central Asia, many of them cannot return to their native village, because there they will simply be killed. And so it turns out that from the moment the decision was made, the person is nowhere: he has no way back home and here he is outside the law. As a result, someone forges documents, buys certificates, someone hides all his life, ”says Kirill Barsky, program manager for the Steps AIDS Foundation.

Kirill is a member of the regional expert group on migrant health, which collects stories from all over the country and requires a review of outdated legislation. The fact that the expulsion norm is morally outdated is also indicated by the infectious disease doctor from Yekaterinburg, Mark Aganin.

– It’s the same as if we today began to live according to the laws of the 19th or 18th centuries. The law was passed in 1995 when HIV was feared like fire and did not really understand how to work with it. But if then this fear was normal, then today everything has changed. Everything except this discriminatory law, says the doctor.

Казахстанку выдворяют из России из-за ВИЧ

Ей придется бросить мужа, дом и работу в Свердловской области, чтобы получить шанс на бесплатную терапию и жизнь.

Уроженку Казахстана, которая 20 лет живет в России, выдворяют из страны из-за ВИЧ, сообщает e1.ru.

Светлане 23 года. 20 из них она прожила в небольшом городе недалеко от Екатеринбурга. А родилась в Казахстане. И по паспорту тоже гражданка Казахстана. Этой осенью она впервые за много лет не смогла продлить РВП (разрешение на временное проживание в России), потому что во время традиционной для оформления этих бумаг сдачи анализов у нее обнаружили ВИЧ.

– В нашей стране действует ФЗ № 38 “О предупреждении распространения в России ВИЧ”, в нем есть статья 11, которая говорит о том, что все иностранцы, у которых обнаружен ВИЧ, должны быть немедленно депортированы из страны. Они “несут опасность для человечества”, говорит этот закон. Шанс остаться в стране есть, но он очень небольшой. Если родители, дети или супруг иностранца являются гражданами РФ, а сам иностранец сможет доказать, что не будет представлять собой угрозу распространения инфекции, то по суду можно гарантировать себе право на жизнь в России, — комментирует ситуацию юрист фонда “Новая жизнь” (НКО, которая помогает на Урале людям, живущим с ВИЧ) Марина Чукавина.

Впрочем, как говорят в самом фонде, чаще всего ситуация складывается другим образом. Мигранты просто переходят на нелегальное положение, а лекарства, которые нужно принимать пожизненно и которые гражданам России государство предоставляет бесплатно, покупают в аптеке. В среднем в месяц на антиретровирусную терапию иностранцам-нелегалам приходится тратить по 7–10 тысяч рублей.

– Депортация бессмысленна и в экономическом, и даже в эпидемиологическом смысле. Очевидно, что в большинстве случаев ВИЧ иностранцы не привозят, а инфицируются здесь. Наибольшая пораженность ВИЧ по всему региону Восточной Европы и Центральной Азии сегодня именно в России. Зачем эта норма сегодня, вообще непонятно. Но мигрантам с ВИЧ она серьезно осложняет жизнь. Если говорить про граждан Центральной Азии, многие из них не могут вернуться в родной аул, потому что там их просто убьют. И вот получается, что с момента, как вынесли решение, человек нигде: ему нет обратной дороги домой и здесь он вне закона. В итоге кто-то подделывает документы, покупает справки, кто-то всю жизнь прячется, — говорит Кирилл Барский, руководитель программ фонда борьбы со СПИДом “Шаги”.

Кирилл входит в региональную экспертную группу по здоровью мигрантов, которая собирает истории со всей страны и требует пересмотра устаревшего законодательства. О том, что норма о выдворении морально устарела, говорит и врач-инфекционист из Екатеринбурга Марк Аганин.

– Это все равно как если бы мы с вами сегодня начали жить по законам XIX или XVIII века. Закон был принят в 95-м, когда ВИЧ боялись как огня и толком не понимали, как с ним работать. Но если тогда этот страх был нормальным, то сегодня все изменилось. Все, кроме этого дискриминирующего закона, — говорит врач.

Tajikistan: Parliament approves amendment increasing prison sentences for “intentional” HIV transmission

Tajik authorities tighten punishment for intentionally transmitting HIV infection

Google translation, for article in Russian please scroll down.

Tajikistan punishes penalties for intentionally transmitting HIV infection. On December 25, the Majlisi Milli, the upper house of the Tajik parliament, approved amendments to the country’s Criminal Code, according to which deliberate infection of another person’s HIV / AIDS would be considered a serious crime.

After the entry into force of new amendments to Art. 142 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Tajikistan (“lecherous actions”), persons deliberately infecting other citizens with HIV infection will face severe punishment – from 8 to 10 years in prison, a member of the upper house of the Tajik parliament said in an interview with Radio Ozodi Kanoatsho Loikzoda. According to him, if the crime was committed by an official, then after serving his term he will lose the right to hold public office for five years.

Currently, according to Art. 125 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Tajikistan, “infection of another person with HIV infection by a person who knew that he had this virus is punishable by imprisonment for a term of two to five years, and intentional infection of two or more persons by imprisonment for a term of five to ten years.

In August last year, it became known that in Tajikistan for the first time a prostitute was sentenced to one year in prison for acquiring 10 men with HIV infection. A woman whose name was not disclosed, but the initials of A.Z. were indicated, was accused of intentionally infecting several of her clients.

Recently, Tajikistan has also increased the punishment for refusing to treat people who suffer from serious infectious diseases, in particular HIV and tuberculosis. The document entered into force in early August. According to the adopted amendments, HIV-infected and tuberculosis patients who are aware of their disease but are being treated will face a large fine in the amount of 20 to 30 calculated indicators (one calculated indicator is 55 somoni).

68 AIDS centers operate in Tajikistan, including one republican and one regional, 8 urban and 58 district. According to official figures, the total number of infected in the republic is 10.7 thousand people, 7 thousand of them are men.

Власти Таджикистана ужесточают наказание за умышленное заражение ВИЧ-инфекцией

В Таджикистане ужесточается наказание за умышленное заражение ВИЧ-инфекцией. 25 декабря Маджлиси Милли, верхней палатой парламента Таджикистана были одобрены поправки в Уголовный кодекс страны, согласно которым преднамеренное заражение ВИЧ/СПИД другого человека будет считаться тяжким преступлением.

После вступления в силу новых поправок в ст. 142 УК Республики Таджикистан (“развратные действия”), лиц, умышленно заражающих других граждан ВИЧ-инфекцией, ждет суровое наказание – от 8 до 10 лет колонии, сообщил в беседе с Радио Озоди Каноатшо Лоикзода, член верхней палаты таджикского парламента. По его словам, если преступление совершено чиновником, то после отбытия срока он лишится права занимать в течение пяти лет государственные должности.

В настоящее время, согласно ст. 125 УК Республики Таджикистан, «заражение другого лица ВИЧ-инфекцией лицом, знавшим о наличии у себя этого вируса, наказывается лишением свободы на срок от двух до пяти лет, а умышленное заражение двух или более лиц – лишением свободы на срок от пяти до десяти лет.

В августе прошлого года стало известно, что в Таджикистане впервые проститутку приговорили к одному году лишению свободы за заражение ВИЧ-инфекцией 10 мужчин. Женщина, имя которой не разглашалось, но были указаны инициалы А.З., обвинялась в намеренном инфицировании нескольких своих клиентов.

Недавно в Таджикистане усилили наказание и за отказ от лечения лиц, которые страдают тяжелыми инфекционными заболеваниями, в частности ВИЧ и туберкулезом. Документ вступил в силу в начале августа. Согласно принятым поправкам, ВИЧ-инфицированных и больных туберкулезом, которые знают о своей болезни, но оказываются лечиться, ждет крупный штраф в размере от 20 до 30 расчетных показателя (один расчетный показатель равен 55 сомони).

В Таджикистане работают 68 центров СПИД, в том числе один республиканский и один региональный, 8 городских и 58 районных. Общее число зараженных в республике, по официальным данным, составляет 10,7 тыс. человек, 7 тыс. из них — мужчины.