THT
Criminalisation of HIV transmission in Europe

A rapid scan of the laws and rates of prosecution for HIV transmission within signatory States of the European Convention of Human Rights
Home Introduction Research aims Methodology Results People profile Other issues Steps forward Country data Survey questionnaire Comment Download report GNP + Europe Terrence Higgins Trust

3 Methodology

3.1 Overview

Data was collected by respondents who completed a questionnaire. More than 600 questionnaires were sent to HIV and AIDS organisations, government departments (Ministries of Justice or Public Health or the equivalent), UN country representatives, government officials, and those working on the issues in the 45 countries that have signed the European Convention of Human Rights. More than 90 per cent of the questionnaires were sent electronically with respondents being invited to respond in kind. Eighty-seven completed questionnaires were returned. Telephone calls were made to identify and elicit the support of respondents in completing questionnaires and to clarify incomplete and unclear responses.

The research comprised a survey and analysis of the extent and nature of national laws involving the criminalisation of the transmission of HIV based on quantitative and qualitative data in States that are signatories to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The research involved the following activities: (a) creating a list of potential contacts from various sources, (b) sending out a questionnaire to all of those on the contact list and tabulating results; (c) following these up with phone calls, emails, etc. (d) tabulating results; and (e) conducting analysis based on results of the survey.

The information provided through these questionnaires comprised the primary sources for the descriptive accounts and analysis that follow. Thus, the results of the research comprised self-reported data collected from responses to the questionnaires used in the survey. These data were not independently confirmed.

Because there was no European Union-wide organisation or forum dealing with HIV criminalisation issues, recruitment of respondents was based on the following parameters. Priority was given to obtaining responses from UNAIDS country officials, national HIV organisations, universities, and from Departments of Justice or the equivalent. In this regard, NAM’s Nambase was a useful resource for collecting contact details of the organisations working in each country, as were UNAIDS staff in Geneva and GNP+ Europe and personal contacts of those managing the project. Internet searches also helped find contact details of organisations and legal departments of universities across the study area. Embassies and High Commission offices based in the UK were contacted for information about in-country government offices. They were also invited to facilitate completion of the questionnaire for their home country. British Council offices were also contacted to help identify competent persons to complete the questionnaire. The Council of Europe was approached and may still submit data.

The questionnaire was divided into four sections:

  • Criminalisation - factual information about rates of convictions and prosecutions, where applicable;
  • The law - information of the laws used, where applicable;
  • The people being prosecuted - information about the people being prosecuted: gender, mode of transmission, nationality and occupation at the time of prosecution;
  • Organisations - details of respondents and organisations working in this area.

Most of the questions were closed or required factual information. At the end of each section a question was posed that asked respondents to give an opinion on their assessment of the situation in their country. A ‘comments’ box was placed as the last section of the questionnaire allowing respondents to provide any other information they thought relevant to the research.

Because the questionnaire could only be sent in one language (English), efforts were made to keep it simple, easy to understand and without jargon. GNP+ Europe and Terrence Higgins Trust were involved in editing and revising the text for the questionnaire.

Distribution began on 16 June 2004, and responses were accepted for inclusion until 23 September 2004. The questionnaire distribution period fell in the middle of the holiday season for a number of the countries involved in the study. Because this period also coincided with the International AIDS Conference in Bangkok, most questionnaires were returned after mid-August. A copy of the questionnaire is available here.

3.2 Language

While the questionnaire was in English, some questionnaires were answered in the official language of the responding country. In these cases, another source from the country was asked to translate the material. Where data was translated by the project team, the reporting indicates this. All translation of the legal text was done by the respondents. In some cases, official translation was provided; in others, the respondents used legal representatives to translate the legislation. In all instances, legal text is reproduced as given.

3.3 Translation of the laws [2]

All the laws analysed for this study were translated from their original official language into English. In some cases, the transcripts provided were not an ‘official’ translation. However, in all cases but one (Belgium), the translation was provided by the responding country. There were as many different formulations of the law as there were respondents.

3.4 Ease of access to information

Of the 45 countries involved in the study, no information or insufficient information was provided for Andorra, Greece, San Marino and Spain. Of the more than 600 questionnaires sent out, some 50 people/organisations responded that they were unable to complete the questionnaire because of lack of access to information.

Information was corroborated by a government source in 13 of the 41 countries that responded. This was generally from the Ministry of Justice or its equivalent, or Public Health or Prosecution Services. Corroboration by a government official did not, in all cases, amount to all the data requested being provided.

Respondents generally were able to identify the law or laws that were being used for the criminalisation of HIV transmission. Where more than one law was in place, not all respondents could identify all the legal references or statutes pertaining to the criminalisation of HIV transmission. While the laws could be identified, not all respondents could provide the precise date of enactment. Again, where the existing law had been amended to specifically mention HIV, the precise dates of amendment were not provided in all cases.

Continue : 4 Results > > >

FOOTNOTES: Click the corresponding number to return to your place in the text

2. The study was concerned more with reporting on the laws applied than commenting on their suitability or adequacy. Neither have we commented upon whether particular laws or their application might be subject to challenge under the provisions of the European Convention of Human Rights, to which all the countries are signatories. Where comparisons were made with other countries, this was more for illustration of the commonalities or divergences than a measure of one’s superiority over another.

Responsibility for the accuracy and interpretation of the data rests with THT and GNP+ Europe. If you would like to provide further information for updates for this survey or make comments please go to comments.

You are free to circulate / disseminate / reproduce this information as long as the source of the original is quoted.