HIV prevention for the next decade: Appropriate, person-centred, prioritised, effective, combination prevention.

UNAIDS and a broad range of partners have collaborated to establish a new set of HIV prevention targets to be achieved by 2025 as an intermediate step towards the sustainable development target for 2030.The number of new HIV infections in the world continues to decline, in part due to the extraordinary expansion of effective HIV treatment. However, the decline is geographically heterogeneous, with some regions reporting a rise in incidence. The incidence target that was agreed for 2020 has been missed.A range of exciting new HIV prevention technologies have become available or are in the pipeline but will only have an impact if they are accessible and affordable and delivered within systems that take full account of the social and political context in which most infections occur. Most new infections occur in populations that are marginalised or discriminated against due to structural, legal, and cultural barriers.The new targets imply a new approach to HIV prevention that emphasises appropriate, person-centred, prioritised, effective, combination HIV prevention within a framework that reduces existing barriers to services and acknowledges heterogeneity, autonomy, and choice.These targets have consequences for people working in HIV programmes both for delivery and for monitoring and evaluation, for health planners setting local and national priorities, and for funders both domestic and global. Most importantly, they have consequences for people who are at risk of HIV exposure and infection.Achieving these targets will have a huge impact on the future of the HIV epidemic and put us back on track towards ending AIDS as a public health threat by 2030.

Ending AIDS as a public health threat by 2030: Time to reset targets for 2025.

Paul De Lay and co-authors introduce a Collection on the design of targets for ending the AIDS epidemic.

Articulating a rights-based approach to HIV treatment and prevention interventions.

Since the beginning of the epidemic, the protection of human rights has been an integral component in the response to Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV). The high degree of stigma and discrimination associated with acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS) has made human rights protection not only a priority to ensure the rights of people living with and at-risk for HIV, but to address public health goals as well. Advances in understanding the impact of antiretroviral treatment on HIV prevention provide exciting opportunities and even a paradigm shift in terms of AIDS prevention. However, this potential cannot be reached unless the advancement of human rights is a primary component of treatment and prevention programme and policy development. The use of antiretroviral treatment as prevention reinforces the value of basic principles related to the dignity and agency of people living with HIV to participate in the design and implementation of programmes, to be informed and to make informed decisions about their health and lives, to be protected from harm, and to have opportunities to seek redress and accountability for abuses. The possibility of using HIV treatment as a prevention tool means that now, more than ever, legal reform and community empowerment and mobilisation are necessary to realize the rights and health of people affected by HIV.

Costing human rights and community support interventions as a part of universal access to HIV treatment and care in a Southern African setting.

Expanding access to antiretroviral therapy (ART) has both individual health benefits and potential to decrease HIV incidence. Ensuring access to HIV services is a significant human rights issue and successful programmes require adequate human rights protections and community support. However, the cost of specific human rights and community support interventions for equitable, sustainable and non-discriminatory access to ART are not well described. Human rights and community support interventions were identified using the literature and through consultations with experts. Specific costs were then determined for these health sector interventions. Population and epidemic data were provided through the Statistics South Africa 2009 national mid-year estimates. Costs of scale up of HIV prevention and treatment were taken from recently published estimates. Interventions addressed access to services, minimising stigma and discrimination against people living with HIV, confidentiality, informed consent and counselling quality. Integrated HIV programme interventions included training for counsellors, 'Know Your Rights' information desks, outreach campaigns for most at risk populations, and adherence support. Complementary measures included post-service interviews, human rights abuse monitoring, transportation costs, legal assistance, and funding for human rights and community support organisations. Other essential non-health sector interventions were identified but not included in the costing framework. The annual costs for the human rights and community support interventions are United States (US) $63.8 million (US $1.22 per capita), representing 1.5% of total health sector HIV programme costs. Respect for human rights and community engagement can be understood both as an obligation of expanded ART programmes and as a critically important factor in their success. Basic rights-based and community support interventions constitute only a small percentage of overall programmes costs. ART programs should consider measuring the cost and impact of human rights and community support interventions as key aspects of successful programme expansion.

Imprisoned and imperiled: access to HIV and TB prevention and treatment, and denial of human rights, in Zambian prisons.

BACKGROUND: Although HIV and tuberculosis (TB) prevalence are high in prisons throughout sub-Saharan Africa, little research has been conducted on factors related to prevention, testing and treatment services. METHODS: To better understand the relationship between prison conditions, the criminal justice system, and HIV and TB in Zambian prisons, we conducted a mixed-method study, including: facility assessments and in-depth interviews with 246 prisoners and 30 prison officers at six Zambian prisons; a review of Zambian legislation and policy governing prisons and the criminal justice system; and 46 key informant interviews with government and non-governmental organization officials and representatives of international agencies and donors. RESULTS: The facility assessments, in-depth interviews and key informant interviews found serious barriers to HIV and TB prevention and treatment, and extended pre-trial detention that contributed to overcrowded conditions. Disparities both between prisons and among different categories of prisoners within prisons were noted, with juveniles, women, pre-trial detainees and immigration detainees significantly less likely to access health services. CONCLUSIONS: Current conditions and the lack of available medical care in Zambia's prisons violate human rights protections and threaten prisoners' health. In order to protect the health of prisoners, prison-based health services, linkages to community-based health care, general prison conditions and failures of the criminal justice system that exacerbate overcrowding must be immediately improved. International donors should work with the Zambian government to support prison and justice system reform and ensure that their provision of funding in such areas as health services respect human rights standards, including non-discrimination. Human rights protections against torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, and criminal justice system rights, are essential to curbing the spread of HIV and TB in Zambian prisons, and to achieving broader goals to reduce HIV and TB in Zambia.

Ten reasons to oppose the criminalization of HIV exposure or transmission.

Recent years have seen a push to apply criminal law to HIV exposure and transmission, often driven by the wish to respond to concerns about the ongoing rapid spread of HIV in many countries. Particularly in Africa, some groups have begun to advocate for criminalization in response to the serious phenomenon of women being infected with HIV through sexual violence or by partners who do not reveal their HIV diagnoses to them. While these issues must be urgently addressed, a closer analysis of the complex issues raised by criminalization of HIV exposure or transmission reveals that criminalization is unlikely to prevent new infections or reduce women's vulnerability to HIV. In fact, it may harm women rather than assist them, and have a negative impact on public health and human rights. This paper is a slightly revised version of a document originally released in December 2008 by a coalition of HIV, women's and human rights organizations. It provides ten reasons why criminalizing HIV exposure or transmission is generally an unjust and ineffective public policy. The obvious exception involves cases where individuals purposely or maliciously transmit HIV with the intent to harm others. In these rare cases, existing criminal laws - rather than new, HIV-specific laws - can and should be used.

Panel: challenging criminal charges for HIV transmission and exposure.

Justice Edwin Cameron, of the Constitutional Court of South Africa, served as moderator. He said that this topic was particularly relevant for "an African/Canadian setting" because African countries may use Canadian developments as justification for their efforts to address HIV transmission and exposure through criminal law. Justice Cameron said that Canada is internationally perceived as a human rights-respecting state and, thus, sets an example, particularly for African nations, on how to comply with human rights issues. He added that in this particular case, however, Canada was sending the wrong message. This article contains summaries of the four presentations made during this panel. Marlys Edwardh reviews how the Supreme Court of Canada in Cuerrier interpreted the concepts of "endangering life" and "fraud". Barry Adam discusses the notion of a "duty to disclose" and how this affects HIV prevention. Lucie Joncas examines how the Supreme Court defined "fraud" in Cuerrier and describes a case before the Quebec Court of Appeal which may turn on whether the use of a condom or having a low viral load is considered not to constitute a significant risk of transmission. Finally, Michaela Clayton describes the trend in Southern African countries to adopt laws criminalizing HIV transmission or exposure, and explains that criminalization endangers women's health and lives.

HIV is a virus, not a crime: ten reasons against criminal statutes and criminal prosecutions.

The widespread phenomenon of enacting HIV-specific laws to criminally punish transmission of, exposure to, or non-disclosure of HIV, is counter-active to good public health conceptions and repugnant to elementary human rights principles. The authors provide ten reasons why criminal laws and criminal prosecutions are bad strategy in the epidemic.

HIV is a virus, not a crime.

Criminalization of HIV transmission is an ineffective tool for combating AIDS and a costly distraction from programmes that we know work--programmes such as effective prevention, protection against discrimination, reducing stigma, empowering women and providing access to testing and treatment. In this article, which is based on a plenary presentation by Edwin Cameron, the authors advance ten reasons why criminalization is poor public health policy.