human rights in the context of HIV। Many such restrictions

Public health is most often cited by States as a basis for restricting human rights in the context of HIV। Many such restrictions, however, infringe on the principle of non-discrimination, for example when HIV status is used as the basis for differential treatment with regard to access to education, employment, health care, travel, social security, housing and asylum. The right to privacy is known to have been restricted through mandatory testing and the publication of HIV status and the right to liberty of person is violated when HIV is used to justify deprivation of liberty or segregation. Although such measures may be effective in the case of diseases which are contagious by casual contact and susceptible to cure, they are ineffective with regard to HIV since HIV is not casually transmitted. In addition, such coercive measures are not the least restrictive measures possible andare often imposed discriminatorily against already vulnerable groups. Finally, and as stated above, these coercive measures drive people away from prevention and care programmes, thereby limiting the effectiveness of public health outreach. A public health exception is, therefore, seldom a legitimate basis for restrictions on human rights in the context of HIV.
The application of specific human rights in the context of the HIV epidemic
Examples of the application of specific human rights to HIV are illustrated below. These rights should not be considered in isolation but as interdependent rights supporting the Guidelines elaborated in this document. In the application of these rights, the significance of national and regional particularities and various historical, cultural and religious backgrounds must be taken into consideration. It remains the duty of States, however, to promote and protect all human rights within their cultural contexts.
International human rights law guarantees the right to equal protection before the law and freedom from discrimination on any ground such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status। Discrimination on any of these grounds is not only wrong in itself but also creates and sustains conditions leading to societal vulnerability to infection by HIV, including lack of access to an enabling environment that will promote behavioural change and enable people to cope with HIV. Groups suffering from discrimination, which also disablesthem in the context of HIV, are women, children, those living in poverty, minorities, indigenous people, migrants, refugees and internally displaced persons, people with disabilities, prisoners, sex workers, men having sex with men and injecting drug users. Responses by States to the epidemic should include the implementation of laws and policies to eliminate systemic discrimination, including where it occurs against these groupsThe Commission on Human Rights has confirmed that “other status” in non-discrimination provisions is to be interpreted to include health status, including HIV/AIDS.40 This means that States should not discriminate against people living with HIV or members of groups perceived to be at risk of infection on the basis of their actual or presumed HIV status.
The Human Rights Committee has confirmed that the right to equal protection of the law prohibits discrimination in law or in practice in any fields regulated and protected by public authorities and that a difference in treatment is not necessarily discriminatory if it is based on reasonable and objective criteria. The prohibition against discrimination thus requires States to review and, if necessary, repeal or amend their laws, policies and practices to proscribe differential treatment which is based on arbitrary HIV-related criteria