A.S. v. Hungary
(UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women; Hungary)
While undergoing surgery in connection with a miscarriage in a public hospital in Hungary, A.S., a Hungarian woman of Roma origin, was asked to sign a statement of consent to a caesarean section. The statement contained a barely legible note using the Latin word for sterilization. Only after she was sterilized did A.S. discover that she had agreed to a procedure that would make her permanently infertile. The Center filed an amicus brief in A.S. vs. Hungary, a case brought by the European Roma Rights Center (ERRC) and the Budapest-based Legal Defense Bureau for National and Ethnic Minorities (NEKI) on behalf of A.S. On August 29, 2006 the U.N. committee that monitors compliance with the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) found Hungary in violation of the Convention for its failure to protect A.S.’s reproductive rights. The decision establishes that the failure to provide reproductive health information and to ensure that women provide their full and informed consent to be sterilized violates their most basic human rights. It marks the first time an international human rights tribunal has held a government accountable for failing to provide necessary information to a woman to enable her to give informed consent to a reproductive health procedure.
To Learn More:
María Mamerita Mestanza Chávez v. Peru
(Inter-American Commission on Human Rights)
In 1996, Peruvian public health officials threatened a woman with criminal sanctions if she did not undergo a sterilization surgery. Her partner ultimately agreed to the surgery. She was never examined prior to the procedure. After complications ensued, she was refused medical treatment and died at home nine days later. After domestic remedies failed, the Latin American and Caribbean Committee for the Defense of Women’s Rights (CLADEM) and two other Peruvian human rights group filed a petition with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) in 1999 and were later joined by the Center and the Center for Justice and International Law (CEJIL). In 2002, the Peruvian government agreed in principle to settle the case. An agreement was signed in 2003 in which the government acknowledged international legal responsibility, agreed to compensate Mestanza’s surviving husband and children, and agreed to modify and implement recommendations made by Peru’s Human Rights Ombudsman concerning sterilization procedures in Peru’s government facilities.
To learn more:
Paola Guzmán Albarracín v. Ecuador (Inter-American Commission on Human Rights; Ecuador)
Paola Guzmán, a student in Ecuador, had been sexually abused by her school’s vice-principal for two years when, at the age of 16, she became pregnant. She committed suicide after learning of her pregnancy. Following her daughter’s death, Paola’s mother brought charges against the vice-principal and called for a disciplinary investigation. However, the local legal process has been slow and inefficient, and the vice-principal remains in hiding.
In October 2006, in conjunction with our local partner CEPAM-Guayaquil, the Center filed a petition before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. The petition, which was filed on behalf of Paola’s mother, argues that Ecuador has deprived Paola Guzmán of the rights to life, personal integrity, personal security, freedom from violence, non-discrimination, judicial guarantees, judicial protection, and to the measures of protection required by her condition as a minor under regional and international instruments.
We currently await the Commission’s decision.
Ramakant Rai & Health Watch UP Bihar v. Union of India and others
(Indian Supreme Court)
International human rights law protects the rights of women to have access to voluntary sterilization services free of coercion, discrimination, and violence. In April 2004, the Center prepared a legal memorandum on the illegality of coercive sterilization under international human rights law, and an analysis of possible remedial measures to address such abuses using comparative examples from other countries that have confronted such abuses.
Human Rights Law Network (HRLN) submitted the memorandum in support of its petition to the Indian Supreme Court, alleging coercion and abusive practices resulting from poor quality of care in government-run sterilization camps and failure to comply with national guidelines on the performance of sterilization, which establish mandatory procedures for obtaining informed consent. In March 2005, the Supreme Court ordered state governments to take immediate steps to regulate health-care providers who perform sterilization procedures, and to compensate women who suffer complications due to sub-standard practices and the relatives of victims who may die from botched operations. The Center is awaiting the full decision of the Court, which is expected in 2007. Learn more:
Violence Against Women
MM v. Peru
(Inter-American Commission on Human Rights)
A 19-year-old Peruvian woman was drugged and then raped by a public health service doctor when she came in for medical services. After filing a criminal report immediately thereafter, the woman was subjected to mistreatment and discrimination by the criminal justice system. The accused was acquitted. The Center, the Latin American and Caribbean Committee for the Defense of Women’s Rights (CLADEM), and the Center for Justice and International Law (CEJIL) filed a petition with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) on behalf of this woman. The Peruvian government entered into a friendly settlement in 2000 in which the government paid compensation to the victim, agreed to work to professionally sanction the accused, agreed to improve legal and administrative measures involving sexual violence claims, and admitted responsibility under international law for the violation of this woman’s human rights.
To learn more:
