A, aware of his HIV infection, had several times unprotected anal sex with B without telling him about his illness. B had not been infected with HIV. The question of whether A had caused a serious danger to B’s life or health.
This document has been translated from its original language using DeepL Pro (AI translation technology) in order to make more content available to HIV Justice Academy users. We acknowledge the limitations of machine translation and do not guarantee the accuracy of the translated version.
Original text is available at https://finlex.fi/fi/oikeus/kko/kko/2015/20150083
The decision of the Constitutional Court of Colombia to eliminate section 370 of the criminal code that criminalised the transmission of HIV.
This document presents some of the most relevant and recent decisions in which the Court has discussed the limits to individual liberty, autonomy and privacy among issues concerning matters like: (i) HIV criminalization and other protections; (ii) sex work; (iii) abortion or voluntary interruption of pregnancy; (iv) rights of same sex couples to marriage; and, (v) personal drug possession and consumption.
Press complaints ruling about whether or not The Argus newspaper in the UK was right publishing the name of man arrested “on suspicion of putting sexual partners at risk of HIV” before he was charged. The complaint was not upheld.
Urges court to drop a bioterrorism charge against an HIV positive man who bit his neighbour during an argument, explaining the facts about HIV transmission risk. The bioterrorism charges were dropped.
On appeal, the Consitutional Court of Zimbabwe decided the only defence to prosecution is disclosure of known or potential HIV infection and suggested people with HIV can be discriminated against by the law if the reason is to protect public health.
Challenges Section 79 of the Zimbabwe Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act 23 of 2004, with the court deciding the provision was overly broad and unconstitutionally vague.
Ruling on “significant risk of bodily harm” which ostensibly found that people with HIV in Canada do not need to disclose their HIV-status before sex only if (i) the accused’s viral load at the time of sexual relations was low, and (ii) condom protection was used.
Ruling that failure to disclose HIV status constitutes fraud. Consequently, a partner’s consent to unprotected sexual activity is not valid. This ruling allows people with HIV in Canada who do not disclose their HIV-status before sex to be prosecuted under sexual assault laws.