Joint written statement submitted by Stichting HIV Justice, Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network, Frontline AIDS LTD., Harm Reduction International, ICW Global Comunidad Internacional de Mujeres viviendo con VIH – SIDA., Asociación Civil, non-governmental organizations in special consultative status.
Ending HIV Criminalisation and HIV-Related Entry, Stay and Residence Restrictions are Essential to Ending AIDS and Leaving No One Behind
We approach 2025 far from the targets of the 2021 Political Declaration on HIV and AIDS. Many States have yet to create enabling legal environments essential for sustaining the HIV response. Failure to act costs lives and reflects a global failure.
States must urgently:
- Repeal HIV-specific criminal laws;
- Issue prosecutorial guidance limiting punitive laws based on HIV status;
- Remove HIV-related travel restrictions;
- Commit to ending HIV criminalisation in the 2026–2031 Global AIDS Strategy, with adequate funding;
- Collaborate with community-led organisations and UNAIDS in legal reforms.
HIV Criminalisation
HIV criminalisation is the unjust use of criminal or punitive laws against people living with HIV based solely on their status. This includes prosecutions for unintentional transmission, perceived exposure, or non-disclosure, undermining human rights and public health.
The Global AIDS Strategy (2021–2026) cites HIV criminalisation as a barrier to ending HIV.
According to the Global HIV Criminalisation Database, as of 2024, 79 countries had punitive HIV-specific laws[1]. Of those with HIV-specific criminal laws, 46 jurisdictions (44%) in 41 countries (52%) have enforced them[2]. In 2024, at least 65 HIV-related prosecutions were reported in the media, a troubling upward trend[3], even if they represent only a fraction of actual cases worldwide.
The negative ramifications of HIV criminalisation impacts more than people who face charges — increasing stigma, detering testing and treatment, and leading to fear, threats, blackmail, and other abuse[4]. There is international expert consensus that HIV criminalisation violates human rights, is inconsistent with current science, and impedes the HIV response.
- United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS), Criminalization of HIV Transmission Policy Brief, 2008
- Oslo Declaration on HIV Criminalisation, 2012[5]
- Global Commission on HIV and the Law, (2012 and 2018 Supplement)[6]
- UNAIDS, Ending overly broad criminalisation of HIV non-disclosure, exposure and transmission (2013)
- Expert consensus statement on the science of HIV in the context of criminal law (2018)[7]
- UNDP, Guidance for prosecutors on HIV-related criminal cases (2021)
Human rights concerns include:
- Non-discrimination and right to equality before the law. Marginalised communities are disproportionately affected — including ethnic and gender minorities, people who use drugs, sex workers, and migrants.
○ Marginalised communities often face discriminatory policing, which is amplified for those with multiple intersecting, stigmatised identities[8].
○ Women are vulnerable to prosecution because of discovering their HIV status before their partners through prenatal screening, and gendered power dynamics impede disclosure and safer sex negotiations[9].
- Right to health. HIV criminalisation poses barriers to HIV prevention, testing, treatment, and care, and interferes with health. One of the government’s motivations to decriminalise HIV in Belize was to increase testing and treatment uptake[10].
- Gender-based violence. HIV criminalisation heightens the risk of violence and abuse for women and LGBTQI+ people. Fear of prosecution, rejection or violence after disclosure prevents some people from seeking services and may lead them to stay in abusive relationships[11].
- Breastfeeding or chestfeeding[12]. Parents, domestic workers, and others have faced prosecution for breastfeeding or comfort nursing due to a (perceived) risk of transmitting HIV to the child — even where the transmission risk was negligible and HIV was not transmitted[13]. These practices violate human rights, including the rights to health, autonomy, bodily integrity, and sexual and reproductive rights. They are a form of systemic and institutional violence against women living with HIV[14].
Our monitoring of law reform efforts[15] suggest that best practice for governments includes:
- Inter-ministerial coordination enables comprehensive and legitimate law reform processes.
o In Belize, the Ministries of Health and Wellness and of Human Development, Women used their ministerial positions to share this information with the public[16].
o In Zimbabwe, the Ministries of Health and Justice collaborated with a parliamentarian group championing sexual and reproductive rights[17].
- Consulting with community members and experts results in better laws.
o In Mexico, state-level legislators have been crucial in reducing the number of ‘danger of contagion’ laws. Advocates and communities participated in roundtables convened by legislators about updating penal codes and eliminating ‘danger of contagion’ provisions[18].
o In Argentina, civil society campaigned for several years, sensitising parliamentarians and senators, ultimately leading to the adoption of the Law on the Comprehensive Response to HIV, Viral Hepatitis, Sexually Transmitted Infections and Tuberculosis (Law 27,675) which has been praised for its human rights-based approach[19].
o In Zimbabwe, people living with HIV spoke at community consultations on repealing the HIV criminalisation law, humanising the issue for parliamentarians[20].
o In Uzbekistan, the list of professions that people living with HIV are prohibited from practicing was reduced in 2024, following direct advocacy by civil society[21].
o Infectious disease scientists and physicians have issued several national-level statements[22] and an international consensus statement[23] to help courts and policymakers understand and apply the best available science.
Other measures to reduce the harms of HIV criminalisation include[24]:
- prosecutorial guidance limiting the use of general laws in HIV cases to only those that include a significant risk of transmission, intention to transmit, and actual transmission, e.g., Scotland; several Canadian provinces.
- eliminating sex offender registration for convictions related to engaging in sex work while living with HIV, e.g., Tennessee (United States).
- removing requirements to disclose HIV status prior to sex, taking account of effective methods of transmission prevention, e.g. Sweden and Niger.
- provisions that provide defenses when HIV status has been disclosed, the person has an undetectable viral load and/or is on treatment, uses condoms, or engages in lower risk sexual activities, e.g., Belarus, Central African Republic, Singapore and California (United States).
Entry, Stay and Residence Restrictions
Some States still impose HIV-related entry, stay, and residency restrictions for people who would otherwise meet all immigration requirements. These restrictions often include bans on entry, mandatory HIV testing, denial of residency permits, and even deportation solely based on HIV status. Others limit access to HIV treatment for non-nationals, creating barriers to essential healthcare.
International experts including UNAIDS[25] and the Global Commission on HIV and the Law[26] have stated that HIV-specific restrictions on migration are ineffective, unnecessary, and harmful. In the era of modern antiretroviral therapy, where treatment also serves as prevention, these restrictions are anachronistic. Rather than contributing to public health safety they perpetuate stigma, misinformation, and fear surrounding HIV.
According to the online platform Positive Destinations, as of January 2025, 17 countries retain severe restrictions — including outright bans on entry and removal if HIV-positive. Eighty-three countries have no restrictions and 68 countries have no restrictions or unclear information. Partial restrictions were present in 33 countries, often consisting of limited residency rights or conditional entry based on health status[27].
These restrictions significantly impact the lives of people living with HIV, limiting their ability to relocate for family reunification, employment, education, personal safety, and other legitimate reasons. HIV-based restrictions impose unjustified differential treatment contrary to the principle of equality before the law and often lead to mandatory testing and disclosure of HIV status, violating privacy rights[28].
HIV-related entry, stay, and residence restrictions undermine public health efforts by driving stigma, deterring health-seeking behaviours, and increasing the risk of violence, exploitation, poverty, and health deterioration.
Removing these discriminatory restrictions is a human rights imperative. States must align their immigration laws with international human rights standards, ensuring that no one faces exclusion or discrimination based on their HIV status.
Centre for Women Justice Uganda, Eurasian Women’s Network on AIDS (EWNA), Positive Women’s Network-US, MPact Global Action,, NGO(s) without consultative status, also share the views expressed in this statement.
[1] www.hivjustice.net/global-hiv-criminalisation-database/laws [2] EJ Bernard, et al; Global trends in HIV criminalisation (2022-2024); HIVJustice Network (HJN), AIDS 2024, THPEF632. [3]E Hatt and EJ Bernard, 2024 in review. www.hivjustice.net/news/2024-in-review-progress-amid-challenges [4]Csete, Joanne et al., So many harms, so little benefit. The Lancet HIV, (2022). https://bit.ly/40uLDYO. [5 ]www.hivjustice.net/oslo/ [6] https://hivlawcommission.org/ [7] www.hivjusticeworldwide.org/en/expert-statement/ [8] Op cit. EJ Bernard, et al; AIDS 2024 [9] S Beaumont, et al; The relevance of gender to potential or perceived HIV ‘exposure’ charges in HIV criminalisation cases. HJN, AIDS 2024, THPEF635 [10] HJN, The ABCs of HIV Law Reform (2023). https://shorturl.at/7R0VT [11] Op cit. Csete, Joanne et al. (2022) [12] Chestfeeding is a gender-neutral term for feeding a baby with human milk, often used by non-binary or trans people. [13] A Symington, et al. When law and science part ways. Therapeutic Advances in Infectious Disease. (2022) doi:10.1177/20499361221122481 [14] HIV JUSTICE WORLDWIDE, “Punitive Responses to People Living with HIV who Breast/Chestfeed or Comfort Nurse are Unjust and Harmful” www.hivjusticeworldwide.org/en/. [15] Advancing HIV Justice www.hivjustice.net/publication/advancing4/ [16] HJN, The ABCs of HIV Law Reform [17] HJN, “Zimbabwe becomes the second country in Africa to fully repeal its HIV-specific criminal law” (2022). https://shorturl.at/8oHow [18] www.hivjustice.net/country/mx/ [19] HJN, The ABCs of HIV Law Reform [20] HJN, “Zimbabwe becomes the second country in Africa…” (2022). https://shorturl.at/8oHow [21] HJN, “Uzbekistan: Successful advocacy is reshaping HIV legislation and profession bans”, 2024 https://shorturl.at/Cqk7H [22] C Kazatchkine, et al. (2015), Ending overly broad HIV criminalization. JIAS. https://doi.org/10.7448/IAS.18.1.20126 [23] https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/jia2.2516.1 [24] Details of each example available in https://www.hivjustice.net/global-hiv-criminalisation-database/laws/ [25] www.unaids.org/en/keywords/travel-restrictions. [26] UNDP, HIV and the Law: Risks, Rights & Health (2012) [27] www.positivedestinations.info/countries-database/ [28] www.positivedestinations.info/personal-stories/