Court Requests Constitutional Review on AIDS Prevention Act Punishing Contact with HIV-Infected Persons

Seoul Western District Court Chief Judge Shin Jinhwa: "Contrary to the Principles of Legality and Prohibition of Excess"

AIDS (Photo by Getty Images Bank)

[Asia Economy Reporter Jeong Dong-hoon] The court has requested the Constitutional Court to review the constitutionality of Article 19 of the Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome Prevention Act (AIDS Prevention Act), which prohibits transmission acts by individuals infected with the Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV/AIDS).

On the 15th, Shin Jin-hwa, Chief Judge of Criminal Division 6 at the Seoul Western District Court, announced that in relation to the trial of a 43-year-old male defendant A, who was indicted last November for violating the AIDS Prevention Act, he requested a constitutional review of Articles 19 and 25(2) of the AIDS Prevention Act.

HIV is the virus that causes Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome (AIDS). Individuals whose immune systems have been damaged or weakened by HIV, or who have developed infections, cancers, or other diseases, are referred to as AIDS patients.

Article 19 of the AIDS Prevention Act stipulates that "an (HIV) infected person shall not engage in acts that transmit the virus to others through blood or bodily fluids." Furthermore, those who violate this provision are subject to imprisonment for up to three years under Article 25(2) of the same law.

The court found that such provisions in the AIDS Prevention Act may violate the principle of legality and the principle of proportionality, raising reasonable doubts about their constitutionality.

The bench stated, "Article 19 of the AIDS Prevention Act makes it difficult to understand what constitutes 'bodily fluids' and what qualifies as 'transmission acts.' Depending on the judge, the judgment of guilt or innocence may vary, or law enforcement agencies may interpret it arbitrarily, which violates the principle of clarity under the principle of legality."

They further pointed out, "If defined as 'through the blood and bodily fluids of an infected person,' the scope could infinitely expand to include risks such as sharing the same straw with another person, brushing against a collar after sweating, or sneezing in a crowded public place, simply by physical contact between the infected person and others."

The court also noted, "With advances in medical technology, AIDS is now recognized almost as a chronic disease, and the risk has significantly decreased as the virus is mostly suppressed by medication. Nevertheless, as long as Article 19 remains effective, infected individuals are effectively forced to give up all human relationships involving physical contact," concluding that this provision also violates the principle of proportionality.

A constitutional review request is a system where a court, when the constitutionality of a law is a premise of a trial, refers the matter to the Constitutional Court either ex officio or upon a party's application.

When the court decides to request a constitutional review and sends the decision to the Constitutional Court, the Constitutional Court accepts it and proceeds with the review process, and the relevant trial is suspended until the Constitutional Court's decision is made.

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.