1.      M Clayton, Namibia

• Some crazy decisions – Texas 35 years for spitting, Swiss man convicted for infecting girlfriend when he believe he was negative
• African model law funded by USAID in 2004 – problematic – requires disclosure to spouse within 6 weeks of diagnosis and covers MTCT
• Many countries require immediate disclosure to spouse, have broad definitions of transmission, and excessive sentences
• Criminalization is bad public policy - it deters testing, spreads misinformation, contributes to fear and stigma, and is used selectively, unfairly and ineffectively.
• Intentional infection should be prosecuted under existing laws special ones are not needed

 2.      V Jacobs, South Africa

• Gave his personal story of getting no sex or HIV education and then being diagnosed HIV positive
• Talked about periods of depression, partners who asked him not to use condoms

3.      L Vlossat, France

• The fight against criminalization is at the core of the fight against HIV
• Five things France will do: circulate evidence, set up a taskforce, bilateral discussions with governments, increase support to treatment and good care programs, work with minorities in partnership with civil society.

4.      Julian Hows, UK

• Criminalization doesn’t change sexual behaviour but fear of it does affect plwha in other ways

• States should only allow prosecution when there is intention and malevolence

• Need to look at sero-discordant relationships and consider mutual responsibility and the need for both to be supported
• Why are negative people who knowingly have unsafe sex with positive people not liable for prosecution?
• Many laws are absurd and neighbouring countries are often different – a group of positive people are creating a database of all of different laws.

Edwin Cameron, Michaela Clayton, Vuyani Jacobs, Louis-Charles Viossat The session discussed the issue of criminalization of HIV transmission, which is being applied in a number of countries and legal jurisdictions to people who transmit, or expose others to, the HIV infection. One main argument that is put forward by policy-makers in some countries for applying criminal law in cases of HIV infection is to protect those who may be particularly vulnerable to HIV infection such as women and girls as there is a generalassumption that criminalizing HIV transmission will prevent new infections. The session stressed that criminalization of HIV transmission will undermine public health efforts and will on the contrary create a situation of fear, whereby people living with or affected by HIV, vulnerable groups including women and girls, Men who have Sex with Men, Sex Workers, people who use drugs will be more exposed to stigma and discrimination and grave human rights violations. The session highlighted that there were no public health evidence supporting criminalizing HIV transmission. It was stressed that criminalization of HIV transmission was a bad public health policy and may actually have a negative impact on HIV prevention, treatment, care programmes and by deterring people from getting HIV testing and treatment. Further, it was suggested that countries should refrain from introducing HIV-specific criminal law and criminalizing HIV transmission but should rather apply existing criminal law than legislating an HIV-specific criminal law.