Oslo Declaration on HIV Criminalisation
Apskatīt komentārus (0)
12.03.2012
- A growing body of evidence suggests that the criminalisation of HIV non-disclosure, potential exposure and non-intentional transmission is doing more harm than good in terms of its impact on public health and human rights.[1]
- A better alternative to the use of the criminal law are measures that create an environment that enables people to seek testing, support and timely treatment, and to safely disclose their HIV status.[2]
- Although there may be a limited role for criminal law in rare cases in which people transmit HIV with malicious intent, we prefer to see people living with HIV supported and empowered from the moment of diagnosis, so that even these rare cases may be prevented. This requires a non-punitive, non-criminal HIV prevention approach centred within communities, where expertise about, and understanding of, HIV issues is best found.[3]
- Existing HIV-specific criminal laws should be repealed, in accordance with UNAIDS recommendations.[4] If, following a thorough evidence-informed national review, HIV-related prosecutions are still deemed to be necessary they should be based on principles of proportionality, foreseeability, intent, causality and non-discrimination; informed by the most-up-to-date HIV-related science and medical information; harm-based, rather than risk-of-harm based; and be consistent with both public health goals and international human rights obligations.[5]
- Where the general law can be, or is being, used for HIV-related prosecutions, the exact nature of the rights and responsibilities of people living with HIV under the law should be clarified, ideally through prosecutorial and police guidelines, produced in consultation with all key stakeholders, to ensure that police investigations are appropriate and to ensure that people with HIV have adequate access to justice.
We respectfully ask Ministries of Health and Justice and other relevant policymakers and criminal justice system actors to also take into account the following in any consideration about whether or not to use criminal law in HIV-related cases:
-
HIV epidemics are driven by undiagnosed HIV infections, not by people who know their HIV-positive status.[6] Unprotected sex includes risking many possible eventualities positive and negative including the risk of acquiring sexually transmitted infections such as HIV. Due to the high number of undiagnosed infections, relying on disclosure to protect oneself and prosecuting people for non-disclosure can and does lead to a false sense of security.
-
HIV is just one of many sexually transmitted or communicable diseases that can cause long-term harm.[7] Singling out HIV with specific laws or prosecutions further stigmatises people living with and affected by HIV. HIV-related stigma is the greatest barrier to testing, treatment uptake, disclosure and a countrys success in getting to zero new infections, AIDS-related deaths and zero discrimination.[8]
-
Criminal laws do not change behaviour rooted in complex social issues, especially behaviour that is based on desire and impacted by HIV-related stigma.[9] Such behaviour is changed by counselling and support for people living with HIV that aims to achieve health, dignity and empowerment.[10]
-
Neither the criminal justice system nor the media are currently well-equipped to deal with HIV-related criminal cases.[11] Relevant authorities should ensure adequate HIV-related training for police, prosecutors, defence lawyers, judges, juries and the media.
-
Once a persons HIV status has been involuntarily disclosed in the media, it will always be available through an internet search. People accused of HIV-related crimes for which they are not (or should not be found) guilty have a right to privacy. There is no public health benefit in identifying such individuals in the media; if previous partners need to be informed for public health purposes, ethical and confidential partner notification protocols should be followed.[12]
References
[1] UNAIDS. Report of the Expert Meeting on the Scientific, Medical, Legal and Human Rights Aspects of Criminalisation of HIV Non-disclosure, Exposure and Transmission, 31 August- 2 September 2011. Geneva, February 2012.
[2] UNAIDS/UNDP. Policy Brief: Criminalization of HIV Transmission. Geneva, July 2008; Open Society Institute. Ten Reasons to Oppose the Criminalization of HIV Exposure or Transmission. 2008; IPPF,GNP+ and ICW. Verdict on a Virus. 2008. See also: IPPF. Verdict on a Virus (documentary) 2011.
[3] GNP+/UNAIDS. Positive Health Dignity and Prevention: A Policy Framework. Amsterdam/Geneva, January 2011.
[4] UNAIDS/UNDP. Policy Brief: Criminalization of HIV Transmission. Geneva, July 2008.
[5] UNAIDS. (2012) Op. cit.
[6] Marks G et al. Estimating sexual transmission of HIV from persons aware and unaware that they are infected with the virus in the USA. AIDS 20(10):1447-50, 2006; Hall HI et al. HIV transmissions from persons with HIV who are aware and unaware of their infection, United States. AIDS 26, online edition. DOI: 10.1097/QAD013e328351f73f, 2012.
[7] Bernard EJ, Hanssens C et al. Criminalisation of HIV Non-disclosure, Exposure and Transmission: Scientific, Medical, Legal and Human Rights Issues. UNAIDS, Geneva, February 2012; Carter M. Hepatitis C surpasses HIV as a cause of death in the US. Aidsmap.com, 21 February 2012.
[8] UNAIDS. Getting to Zero: 2011-2015 Strategy. Geneva, December 2010.
[9] Bernard EJ and Bennett-Carlson R. Criminalisation of HIV Non-disclosure, Exposure and Transmission: Background and Current Landscape. UNAIDS, Geneva, February 2012.
[10] GNP+/UNAIDS (2011) Op. cit.
[11] Bernard EJ and Bennett-Carlson R (2012) Op. cit.
[12] UNAIDS. Opening up the HIV/AIDS epidemic: Guidance on encouraging beneficial disclosure, ethical partner counselling & appropriate use of HIV case-reporting. Geneva, 2000.
