Ending overly broad HIV criminalization: Canadian scientists and clinicians stand for justicePublished on Friday, 17 July 2015 15:39
Cécile Kazatchkine,§,1 Edwin Bernard,2 and Patrick Eba3 J Int AIDS Soc. 2015; 18(1): 20126.
In 2012, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that people living with HIV can be imprisoned for having sex with a condom or while having a low (or undetectable) viral load if they have not first disclosed that they are HIV-positive. According to the court, people living with HIV have a legal duty to disclose their status to a partner if the sex poses a “realistic possibility of HIV transmission” . The court said that “as a general matter,” a realistic possibility of HIV transmission is negated where 1) the accused has a low viral load and 2) a condom is used during the sexual act . Otherwise, in Canada, a person is at risk of prosecution for aggravated sexual assault even if they had no intent to transmit HIV and no transmission occurred.
The ruling left limited legal recourse to those working to end unjust prosecutions [2–4]. Yet, several months after the decision’s release, six distinguished Canadian HIV scientists and clinicians took ground-breaking action to advance justice by co-authoring the “Canadian consensus statement on HIV and its transmission in the context of the criminal law” [“the (consensus) statement”] . This effort was born out of the belief that the application of criminal law to HIV non-disclosure was being driven by a poor appreciation of the science of both HIV as a chronic manageable disease and its risks of transmission. Aimed squarely at the justice system and informed by HIV community, public health and human rights concerns, the consensus statement was based on a review of the most relevant, reliable and up-to-date medical and scientific evidence. It sets out in clear, concise and understandable terms a collective expert opinion about HIV sexual transmission, transmission associated with biting and spitting, and HIV as a chronic manageable condition.
One key area of consensus described in the statement is that, contrary to the Supreme Court’s interpretation, both vaginal and anal sex with a condom pose a negligible possibility of transmission, whether or not the HIV-positive partner has a low viral load. In fact, “[w]hen used correctly and no breakage occurs, condoms are 100% effective at stopping the transmission of HIV” . In addition, the statement notes that “evidence suggests that the possibility of sexual transmission of HIV from an HIV-positive individual to an HIV-negative individual via unprotected [i.e., condomless] vaginal intercourse approaches zero when the HIV-positive individual is taking antiretroviral therapy and has an undetectable viral load” .
The statement is consistent with UNAIDS’ 2013 guidance, which clearly stipulates that the criminal law should never be applied in cases of alleged HIV non-disclosure when there is no intent to harm, but especially when the risks of transmission are not significant (e.g., when a condom is used consistently, the HIV-positive person is on effective treatment or has a low viral load, or in cases of oral sex) . Importantly, the consensus statement does not employ the risk categories traditionally used in public health, which often describe activities from “high risk to no risk.” Knowing that these descriptors can contribute to an exaggerated sense of risk when taken out of context, Canadian experts described the per-act possibility of HIV transmission through sex, biting or spitting along a continuum from “low possibility to negligible possibility, to no possibility of transmission” . These unique categories better reflect that so-called “risky” activities “carry a per-act possibility of transmission that is much lower than is often commonly believed” . Also noteworthy is that the conclusions in the statement expressing scientific consensus are strong and relatively free of conditions. In 2008, Swiss HIV experts released a statement titled “HIV-positive individuals not suffering from any other STI and adhering to an effective antiretroviral treatment do not transmit HIV sexually” .
Although the statement had some success in terms of influencing criminal law around perceived HIV exposure , its bold conclusions raised concerns in the international scientific community, as some considered them premature . Others worried about their implications on condom-based safer sex messages . Mindful of this controversy, the Canadian authors emphasized that their statement is meant to inform the criminal justice system and is intended neither for public health messaging nor for the development and delivery of HIV policy and programmes. They also relied on new evidence that has since confirmed the dramatic impact of treatment on viral load and HIV transmission risk [11, 12]. More than 75 HIV scientists and clinicians Canada-wide have now endorsed the statement, agreeing that “[they] have a professional and ethical responsibility to assist those in the criminal justice system to understand and interpret current medical and scientific evidence regarding HIV” . We hope that other groups around the world will take similar action as overly broad HIV criminalization is not unique to Canada.
It is estimated that some 61 countries have adopted laws that specifically allow for HIV criminalization, while prosecutions for HIV non-disclosure, exposure and transmission have been reported in at least 49 countries . UNAIDS, UNDP, the UN Special Rapporteur on the right to health, and the Global Commission on HIV and the Law have all urged that the criminal law be limited to exceptional cases of intentional transmission [6, 14–16]. But in many jurisdictions, perceived or potential exposure, regardless of intent or actual transmission of HIV, is sufficient to establish a criminal offence . Scientific evidence, while not a panacea, can influence positive change.
In 2013, based on medical evidence, a trial judge in Canada acquitted a man with an undetectable viral load who had condomless sex without disclosing his status . At the same time, Swedish scientists produced a consensus statement on HIV transmission that has since been recognized by the courts in that country . In Switzerland, the Swiss statement has supported successful law reform . In 2011, Denmark suspended the only HIV-specific criminal law in Western Europe due to improved understanding of HIV-related risks and harms . And in the United States, where most prosecutions occur , science played a crucial role in both Iowa’s HIV-specific criminal law reform  and a recent ruling by the Supreme Court of Iowa , with the expectation of more changes to follow given federal recognition for the need to modernize such laws based on science . Ensuring that criminal laws and proceedings employ the best available scientific evidence relating to HIV is critical in achieving justice whilst combating discrimination against people living with HIV. Scientists and clinicians are central to this process, as is the bold, undeniable language provided in the Canadian consensus statement.
We thank Janet Butler-McPhee and Vajdon Sohaili for their editorial assistance.
We thank the Elton John AIDS Foundation for their financial support.
Authors declared no potential competing interest relevant to this work.
CK wrote the manuscript. All authors – CK, EB and PE – contributed to the conception, revisions and approval of the final article.
1. Mabior R. v. 2012 SCC 47,  2 SCR 584. 2. Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network. HIV non-disclosure and the criminal law: an analysis of two recent decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada [Internet] 2012. [cited 2015 Mar 1]. Available from: http://tinyurl.com/krr5vmz. 3. AIDS Committee of Toronto. Criminal law and HIV non-disclosure: a response to the October 2012 Supreme Court of Canada ruling [Internet] 2012. [cited 2015 Mar 1]. Available from: http://tinyurl.com/norlv3l. 4. Canada: Supreme Court makes bad law worse. HIV Justice Network [Internet] 2012. Oct 5, [cited 2015 Mar 1]. Available from: http://tinyurl.com/qyads8x. 5. Loutfy M, Tyndall M, Baril JG, Montaner JSG, Kaul R, Hankins C. Canadian consensus statement on HIV and its transmission in the context of the criminal law. Can J Infect Dis Med Microbiol. 2014;25(3):135–40. [PMC free article] [PubMed] 6. UNAIDS. Ending overly broad criminalisation of HIV non-disclosure, exposure and transmission: critical scientific, medical and legal considerations [Internet] 2013. [cited 2015 Mar 1]. Available from: http://tinyurl.com/kagpzm7. 7. Vernazza P, Hirschel B, Bernasconi E, Flepp M. Les personnes séropositives ne souffrant d’aucune autre MST et suivant un traitement antirétroviral efficace ne transmettent pas le VIH par voie sexuelle. Bull Méd Suisses. 2008;89:165–9. 8. “S” v. Procureur Général. Cour de Justice. Chambre pénale. Geneva, Switzerland: 2009. Feb 23, [cited 2015 Mar 1]. Available from: http://tinyurl.com/kuzdcpw [Internet] 9. Bernard EJ. Swiss statement that ‘undetectable equals uninfectious’ creates more controversy in Mexico City. NAM Aidsmap (news) [Internet] 2008. Aug 5, [cited 2015 Mar 1]. Available from: http://tinyurl.com/phxmmma. 10. The Swiss statement and its repercussions. NAM Aidsmap (resources) [Internet] [cited 2015 Mar 1]. Available from: http://tinyurl.com/negcgra. 11. Cohen MS, Chen YQ, McCauley M, Gamble T, Hosseinipour MC, Kumarasamy N, et al. Prevention of HIV-1 infection with early antiretroviral therapy. N Engl J Med. 2011;365:493–505. [PMC free article] [PubMed] 12. Loutfy MR, Wu W, Letchumanan L, Bondy L, Antoniou T, Margolese S, et al. Systematic review of HIV transmission between heterosexual serodiscordant couples where the HIV-positive partner is fully suppressed on antiretroviral therapy. PLoS One. 2013;8:e55747. [PMC free article] [PubMed] 13. UNAIDS. The gap report. Geneva: UNAIDS; 2014. 14. UNAIDS, UNDP. Policy brief: criminalization of HIV transmission. Geneva: UNAIDS; 2008. 15. Global Commission on HIV and the Law. HIV and the law: risks, rights and health. New York: UNDP HIV/AIDS Group; 2012. 16. United Nations General Assembly. Report of the Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, Anand Grover. Human Rights Council, 14th session; 2010 April 27; Agenda item 3, A/HRC/14/20. 2010. 17. Global Network of People Living with HIV, HIV Justice Network Advancing HIV justice: a progress report of achievements and challenges in global advocacy against HIV criminalisation [Internet] 2013. [cited 2015 Mar 1]. Available from: http://tinyurl.com/okbpqft. 18. Kazatchkine C. Canada: Nova Scotia court acquits young man with undetectable viral load of aggravated sexual assault for HIV non-disclosure despite no condom use. HIV Justice Network [Internet] 2013. Nov 12, [cited 2015 Mar 1]. Available from: http://tinyurl.com/oo3456k. 19. Sweden: Court of Appeal acquits ‘HIV exposure’ case, recognises National Board of Health and Welfare endorsement of ‘Swiss statement’, Minister for Social Affairs will consider reviewing application of law. HIV Justice Network [Internet] 2013. Oct 29, [cited 2015 Mar 1]. Available from: http://tinyurl.com/mw4kpd2. 20. Moore S. Suisse: Nouvelle loi sur les épidémies et dépénalisation du VIH. Fil Rouge, the blog of Groupe Sida Genève [Internet] 2013. Sep 23, [cited 2015 Mar 1]. Available from: http://tinyurl.com/kj5nd6x. 21. Gowans A. New HIV transmission law makes Iowa model for nation. The Gazette [Internet] 2014. Jun 3, [cited 2015 Mar 1]. Available from: http://tinyurl.com/moe5qjx. 22. Gowans A. Iowa Supreme Court throws out criminal transmission of HIV conviction. The Gazette [Internet] 2014. Jun 13, [cited 2015 Mar 1]. Available from: http://tinyurl.com/mzlaeoy. 23. United States Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division.
Best practices guide to reform HIV-specific criminal laws to align with scientifically-supported factors [Internet] 2014. [cited 2015 Mar 1]. Available from: http://tinyurl.com/kreufxc.
Source: Journal of the International AIDS Society