A/HRC/17/25 contain the spread of HIV/AIDS, not least because they assumed a static social environment.48 39. The second phase of the response, in which the international community promoted the prevention of discrimination under the “public health rationale”, is a clear example of recognition of the impact of human rights on health, and vice versa. It became increasingly clear that violations of the right to health, such as the State’s failure to prevent discrimination towards people living with HIV and AIDS (or, indeed, discrimination perpetrated by the State itself) actually reduced the effectiveness of HIV prevention programmes. Conversely, where rights were protected by the State, through clear preservation of anonymity in the context of HIV testing, participation in testing and counseling increased. The elimination of discrimination and protection of basic freedoms not only upheld rights but furthered public health aims concurrently.49 40. The relationship between the law, public health and human rights has thus been seen as of particular importance in relation to HIV. In an attempt to control the virus and the social practices that result in its spread, laws may be hastily enacted that are only partially successful in achieving behavioural change. The “AIDS paradox” is that: “…one of the most effective laws we can offer to combat the spread of HIV which causes AIDS is the protection of persons living with AIDS, and those about them, from discrimination.”50 Indeed, this paradox does not exist only in respect of laws. Any development intervention designed to combat the spread of HIV which respects the human rights of those directly affected by and those most at risk of HIV, will ultimately be more effective in achieving its stated goals. 41. HIV thus represents a good example of the multi-faceted relationship between health and human rights.51 It shows how health policies and legislation can impact detrimentally on human rights, while violations of human rights can detrimentally affect health. Thus, policies and legislation which allow for the quarantining of a person who has contracted HIV would infringe on the right to liberty and security of person, while “naming and shaming” people who test positive to HIV, in violation of their right to privacy and confidentiality, creates stigma and deters others from seeking out testing and counselling. This close interrelationship also means that human rights and health-related policies and programmes have a great potential to be mutually reinforcing in the realization of healthrelated development and the right to health. 42. However, there is still insufficient attention to these interactions, particularly in respect of development work. For instance, performing a human rights impact assessment of development policies and programmes, and documenting human rights abuses, are strategies that largely deal with the first two relationships mentioned. Incorporating human rights into each aspect of health-related development programming from its initiation is much more difficult to achieve. 43. As noted, in the initial, panicked response to HIV, there were calls for quarantine, compulsory notification, and even branding of those people living with HIV.52 As 48 49 50 51 52 Jonathan Mann et al., Health and Human Rights: A Reader (New York, Routledge, 1999), pp. 217218. Ibid. Michael Kirby, “AIDS and the Law” South African Journal of Human Rights, vol. 9, No. 1 (1993), p. 3. Lawrence Gostin, The AIDS pandemic (Chapel Hill, University of North Carolina Press, 2004) pp. 64-67. Edwin Cameron and Edward Swanson, “Public health and human rights – the AIDS crisis in South Africa” South African Journal on Human Rights, vol. 8, No. 1 (1992), p. 201. 13