73 that in cases of female sterilization access to information on alternative contraceptive methods is essential, because tubal ligation is only one method among many that could have been evaluated to achieve the same end; that is, prevent a future pregnancy. The Court has already established in other cases that access to full and comprehensible information is a component of the accessibility of health services and, consequently, it is essential in order to ensure this right (supra para. 156). I.V. should have been informed not only of the success rate of other contraceptive methods, but also of whether they were appropriate in her specific case. Only then would she have had the necessary information to take a free and informed decision. 233. In this regard, the Court considers that I.V. did not have the opportunity to think about and completely understand the consequences of her decision in the context of her situation and based on what she was told by the doctors because the Court finds that it was not reasonable to suppose that she had been able to reflect and take a decision in only 10 minutes, or even in two hours, 306 based on the scant information provided and in the circumstances in which she found herself. Furthermore, the information that she could possibly die if she did not undergo sterilization and became pregnant again was presented at a moment of extreme stress and vulnerability, which could have contributed to the eventual acceptance of sterilization in a situation of coercion, intimidation and profound fear for her life307 (supra paras. 183 and 231). I.V.’s failure to understand fully the magnitude and consequences of the medical procedure that she underwent is clear from the evidence in this case, because on July 2 and 3, 2000, she asked the doctors to explain to her again what had happened and why they had sterilized her without her consent. 308 234. Lastly, the Court emphasizes that the decision to perform the tubal ligation was a decision that related to I.V.’s most intimate sphere. Therefore, based on her right to reproductive freedom and autonomy, it was for I.V. to take the decision to undergo this surgical contraceptive method, rather than choose other less invasive methods, and not for the physician or her husband. In this regard, even though the Court considers it positive to allow I.V.’s partner to take part in this decision, if she had so wished, this does not mean that he could have either given or confirmed the consent when they tried to find him so that he could ratify a presumed verbal consent supposedly given previously by I.V. in the operating theater. Added to this, the Court finds that the form signed by J.E., I.V.’s husband, authorizing the caesarean section (supra para. 65), in no way involved authorization or consent for the tubal ligation procedure. Consequently, the Court considers that, taking into account the State’s version of the facts, the verbal consent given by I.V. was contrary to the criteria of the Convention. 235. Based on all the above, the Court concludes that I.V. did not express her prior, free, full and informed consent to undergo the surgical procedure of Pomeroy-type tubal ligation and, consequently, she underwent a non-consensual or involuntary sterilization. The Court considers that the fact that I.V. was subjected to a tubal ligation procedure without providing her with complete, One of the doctors stated that I.V. was provided with information for approximately 10 minutes, while the other stated that the conversation with the patient occurred during the approximately two hours that the procedure took (from 20:30 to 22:30 hours). Cf. Statement made by Edgar Torrico Ameller before the Inter-American Court during the public hearing held on May 2, 2016, and Affidavit prepared by Marco Vladimir Vargas Terrazas on April 28, 2016 (evidence file, volume XI, affidavits, folio 3934). 306 Dr. Edgar Torrico Ameller stated that sterilization was suggested to I.V. and she was “told that her life would be in danger if she became pregnant again because there was a risk of her uterus rupturing, leaving [her three] children orphans.” Statement made by Edgar Torrico Ameller on July 26, 2004, according to the record of the oral hearing issued by the Copacabana Trial Court (evidence file, volume XII, annex 1(c)) to the State’s final arguments, folio 4735). 307 Cf. Statement made by I.V. before the Inter-American Court during the public hearing held on May 2, 2016; Affidavit prepared by Marco Vladimir Vargas Terrazas on April 28, 2016 (evidence file, volume XI, affidavits, folios 3931, 3934 and 3937 to 3938), and Statement made by Marco Vladimir Vargas Terrazas on July 28, 2004, according to the record of the oral hearing issued by the Copacabana Trial Court (evidence file, volume XII, annex 1(d)) to the State’s final arguments, folio 4789). 308