discrimination affecting people living with HIV/AIDS

Seeking justice is a human right in itself, as stated in article 8 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: “Everybody has the right to an
effective remedy by the competent tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him (or her) by the constitution or by law”.
Seeking justice to obtain remedy for specific violations and abuses of human rights in the context of HIV/AIDS is also an important way
to advocate against discrimination affecting people living with HIV/AIDS and to enforce laws that are key to HIV prevention, such as
regulations about the safety of blood transfusions.
When a case is won, it may benefit a large number of people living with HIV/AIDS and help to strengthen positive attitudes towards them.
Courts of justice exist to remedy injustices, to interpret and implement national law, and to ensure observance of international norms that have
been adopted by the country. You may have the feeling that the judicial system is inaccessible to most vulnerable groups and too procedural, and
that it is therefore incapable of providing timely and adequate responses to injustices caused by human rights abuses in the context of HIV/AIDS.
Here are some concrete examples of how courts of justice enforce human rights, thus helping to improve daily life for people living with HIV/AIDS
and strengthening HIV-prevention.•Σ In Venezuela a civil action was brought on behalf of
children living with HIV/AIDS and, as a result, all children
are now entitled to receive combination therapy.
•Σ In the United States, the Supreme Court upheld a
claim of discrimination brought by a woman against
a dentist who had refused her dental treatment on
account of her HIV status. The courts rejected the
dentist's argument that treating her would pose a
direct threat to his health.
•In South Africa, in the case of ‘A’ v South African Airways
(SAA), the SAA made a settlement offer of R 100.000 to A
and also agreed to pay all legal costs for the case. The
SAA unconditionally admitted that the exclusion of A
from the position of cabin attendant on the grounds of
his HIV status was unjustified. Implicit in SAA’s admission
was that SAA should have obtained A’s informed
consent in conducting the HIV test and should have
given him pre and post-test counselling in conducting
the HIV test.
Σ •Σ In Australia, a tribunal ruled in favour of an HIVpositive
football player who complained after his
club refused to register as a player because he was
HIV-positive. The tribunal said that the very low risk
of transmitting HIV to other players if reasonable
precautions were taken meant that the club's
decision was not justified.