Constitutional Court Upholds Constitutionality of Punishment for Fluid Transmission by AIDS Infected Persons

Constitutionality Opinion: "Public Interest in Achieving Infection Control Outweighs Infected Individuals' Freedom of Movement"
Partial Unconstitutionality Opinion: "Unclear Effectiveness of Transmission Prevention Through Basic Rights Restrictions"

The Constitutional Court has ruled that the provisions of the Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome (AIDS) Prevention Act, which punish transmission acts by persons infected with the Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV), do not violate the Constitution.

Chief Justice Yoo Nam-seok of the Constitutional Court and the constitutional justices are seated before the start of the ruling on the constitutional review request and jurisdictional dispute trial held on the 26th at the Grand Bench of the Constitutional Court in Jongno-gu, Seoul.
[Image source=Yonhap News]

On the 26th, the Constitutional Court made a constitutional ruling on the unconstitutionality review case regarding Articles 19 and 25(2) of the AIDS Prevention Act, with a decision of 4 justices in favor of constitutionality and 5 justices partially finding unconstitutionality. Since a majority of 6 out of 9 justices is required for a ruling of unconstitutionality, the decision to uphold constitutionality was maintained with only 5 justices agreeing.

The Court held that, based on clinical research assuming that under current medical standards, patients receiving proper AIDS treatment have no possibility of virus transmission, it is necessary to interpret the challenged provisions in a limited manner.

The Court stated, "Considering that to effectively guarantee the health rights of uninfected persons, the self-determination rights of partners engaging in sexual activity with infected persons must be guaranteed, it is reasonable to interpret the challenged provisions as not applying to ‘acts where an infected person, who has received medical treatment and whose possibility of HIV transmission is significantly low, informs the partner of their infection status.’"

Furthermore, the Court noted, "Since infected persons are prohibited from engaging in sexual activities freely, their freedom of privacy and general freedom of conduct may be restricted," but added, "Considering that the partner may be exposed to serious risks such as lifelong daily medication due to infection with an incurable virus through sexual activity with the infected person without any knowledge, the public interest in protecting the health of the people outweighs the restriction on the infected person’s freedom of conduct."

On the other hand, Justices Yoo Nam-seok, Kim Ki-young, Moon Hyung-bae, Lee Mi-sun, and Jeong Jeong-mi expressed a partial unconstitutionality opinion, stating, "According to the challenged provisions, even if an infected person is medically considered unable to infect others due to treatment, they cannot be exempted from punishment. By including all transmission acts of infected persons who are diligently receiving treatment as prohibited and punishable without exception, it excessively restricts their freedom of privacy and general freedom of conduct, while the preventive effect on transmission obtained through such restrictions on fundamental rights is unclear."

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