International consultation on the criminalization of HIV transmission

Abstract

Résumé

Depuis le début de l’épidémie de VIH, certaines juridictions ont appliqué le droit pénal à la transmission du virus. En 2002, l’ONUSIDA a publié une étude des politiques possibles en la matière. Devant les demandes accrues d’application du droit pénal à la transmission du VIH et les préoccupations émises à cet égard par le Groupe de référence de l’ONUSIDA sur le VIH et les droits de l’homme et d’autres organes, le PNUD et le Secrétariat de l’ONUSIDA ont décidé de réunir des juristes et d’autres parties prenantes pour débattre de la question dans le contexte d’une riposte efficace au VIH fondée sur les droits de l’homme et la santé publique. La discussion définira une politique générale ONUSIDA/PNUD sur ce thème. Il a été précisé que la consultation portera principalement sur la transmission sexuelle du VIH, même si l’application du droit pénal à la transmission du VIH dans d’autres contextes suscite aussi des inquiétudes. Cet article est formé d’extraits du rapport de la réunion.

Resumen

Desde el principio de la epidemia del VIH, algunas jurisdicciones han aplicado el derecho penal a la transmisión del VIH. En el año 2002, ONUSIDA publicó un artículo sobre opciones de políticas al respecto. En vista de nuevos llamados a la aplicación del derecho penal a la transmisión del VIH y de las inquietudes expresadas al respecto por el Grupo de Referencia de ONUSIDA sobre el VIH y los Derechos Humanos y otros, UNDP y la Secretaría de ONUSIDA decidieron reunir a varios peritos jurídicos y otras partes interesadas para tratar el asunto en el contexto de una respuesta eficaz de derechos humanos y salud pública al VIH. La discusión informaría a un compendio de políticas de ONUSIDA/UNDP al respecto. Se aclaró que la consulta se centraría principalmente en la transmisión del VIH por contacto sexual, aunque se señaló que existen inquietudes con relación a la aplicación del derecho penal a la transmisión del VIH en otros contextos. Este artículo consiste en pasajes del informe de la reunión.

Acknowledgement

On behalf of UNAIDS Secretariat and UNDP, Ralf Jürgens acted as rapporteur of the meeting and drafted the meeting report for finalization by UNAIDS Secretariat and UNDP. Excerpted and reprinted with the kind permission of UNAIDS and UNDP. © 2009 Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS. All rights reserved.

Notes

* UNAIDS (2002), Criminal Law, Public Health and HIV Transmission: A Policy Options Paper.

† For some data from the United States of America on the frequency and distribution of prosecutions, see Zita Lazzarini, Sarah Bray and Scott Burris (2002), “Evaluating the Impact of Criminal Laws on HIV Risk Behavior”, Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 30:239-253. The article notes that between 1986 and 2001, 316 HIV-positive people were prosecuted for exposing others to or transmitting HIV in the United States. For data from Europe, see Global Network of People Living with HIV/AIDS Europe and Terrence Higgins Trust (2005), Criminalisation of HIV transmission in Europe: A rapid scan of the laws and rates of prosecution for HIV transmission within signatory States of the European Convention of Human Rights. Available on-line at <http://www.gnpplus.net/criminalisation/rapidscan.pdf>.

* Available at <http://www.euro.who.int/Document/SHA/crimconsultation_latest.pdf>.

† Available at <http://www.arasa.info/publications.php>.

* Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and UNAIDS (2006), International Guidelines on HIV/AIDS and Human Rights: 2006 Consolidated Version. Available at <http://data.unaids.org/Publications/IRC-pub07/jc1252-internguidelines_en.pdf>.

† Participants acknowledged that different terminology is used in relation to mental culpability across different legal systems. However, it was generally agreed that the concept of “intentional transmission” of HIV should be limited to those rare cases where a person acts with the purpose of infecting someone.

* Lazzarini, Bray, Burris, supra, note 2.

† S Burris, L Beletsky, J Burleson, P Case, Z Lazzarini (2007), “Do criminal laws influence HIV risk behavior? An empirical trial”, 39:467-517. In the study, 490 people at elevated risk of HIV were interviewed, 248 in Chicago (Illinois) and 242 in New York City. Approximately half in each state were men who have sex with men and half were people who inject drugs. One-hundred sixty-two subjects reported known HIV infection (Chicago 58; New York City 104), and 328 reported being HIV negative or not knowing their HIV status. Indicators of the law were 1) residence in the state, and 2) belief that it is a crime for a person with HIV to have sex with another person without disclosing his or her serostatus. The study examined independent predictors of unprotected sex. The presentation by Scott Burris at the consultation about this study can be obtained via UNAIDS.

** Participants heard from Priscilla Misihairabwi-Mushonga, a Member of Parliament from Zimbabwe, who said that calls for criminalization in her country came from those who wanted to protect women and victims of rape from HIV. She highlighted that the debate about criminalization in Zimbabwe was a very emotional one and that many female Members of Parliament argued for criminalization of HIV transmission. However, she pointed out that the debate missed many important points, namely the fact that criminalization would not offer protection, and instead, would put women at risk of negative consequences.

* R. v. Edwards, 2001 NSSC 80 (Nova Scotia Supreme Court) at para. 6.

† R. v. Nduwayo, 2006 BCSC 1972 (British Columbia Supreme Court) at paras. 7-8.

** New Zealand Police v. Dalley, New Zealand District Court, 4 October 2005.

†† “AA” [January 2005 judgment of Supreme Court of the Netherlands] at para 3.5.

* However, as a result of extensive dialogue with HIV sector organizations in advance of this ruling, the Ministers of Justice and Health recognized that embarking on such a legislative reform project would be undesirable (in part because of the stigmatizing impact). Therefore, they determined that, for public health reasons, they would accept the ruling of the Supreme Court that effectively circumscribes the possibility and scope of future prosecutions.

† The case of Enhorn v. Sweden (2005), European Court of Human Rights, Application No. 56529/00, offers a prime example. In that case, the Court held that Sweden had violated the right to liberty, under the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (Article 5) for the manner in which they had approached the compulsory detention of a person living with HIV. Under public health legislation, Swedish authorities had repeatedly extended his involuntary detention for a period eventually totalling almost seven years with the stated objective of preventing him from transmitting HIV to sexual partners, although his conduct was never adjudged to be criminal under Swedish law. The Court found that other, less severe measures had not been explored, with this detention being taken as a last resort, and awarded damages against Sweden for the violation of the complainant's rights under the Convention.