Acquittal of Woman Accused of Infecting Ex-partner with HIV in Tenerife


The Provincial Court of Santa Cruz de Tenerife has cleared a woman accused by her ex-partner of transmitting the HIV virus to him after a year and a half of unprotected sexual relations.

The court found insufficient evidence to dismantle the presumption of innocence and conclude that the woman infected the man, as she could have contracted the disease through other relationships.

The court maintained doubts about the accused’s guilt as both individuals had different types of the virus, one with HIV-1 and the other with HIV-2, each with different viral loads.

The judges noted that without a phylogenetic analysis of both viruses to compare their genetic composition, it cannot be proven that they were infected with the same strain.

The ruling, appealable before the Superior Court of Justice of the Canary Islands (TSJC), stated that there was no undeniable evidence proving the woman infected the man with HIV.

The ruling also mentioned that the complainant had a previous relationship before being with the accused, suggesting the possibility of the infection originating from another source.

Despite a negative HIV test before the relationship, the ruling pointed out that this did not rule out a previous infection.

The court highlighted contradictions between the parties regarding disclosure of the disease, type, and frequency of sexual relations.

The man was diagnosed in 2019 after the relationship, alleging the woman never disclosed her condition but justified medications at her place for a kidney issue.

During the trial, the woman stated she disclosed her HIV status since 2014, and the man was aware, mentioning his parallel relationships with other women.

The prosecutor sought nine years for grievous bodily harm and a 300,000 euro compensation; however, the defence argued for acquittal due to lack of evidence.

Prosecution claimed the woman knew her HIV status and failed to disclose it, supported by the private prosecution highlighting the defendant’s contradictions, while the defence stressed insufficient evidence to dismantle the presumption of innocence.