4 I INTRODUCTION OF THE CASE AND PURPOSE OF THE DISPUTE 1. The case submitted to the Court. On April 23, 2015, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Inter-American Commission” or “the Commission”) submitted to the Court’s jurisdiction the case of “I.V.” against the Plurinational State of Bolivia (hereinafter “the State of Bolivia,” “the Bolivian State” or “Bolivia”). According to the Commission, the case relates to the State’s alleged international responsibility for the procedure to which I.V. was subjected in a public hospital on July 1, 2000. According to the Commission, this operation, consisting in bilateral tubal ligation, had been performed in the absence of an emergency situation and without the informed consent of I.V., who suffered the permanent and enforced loss of her reproduction function. The Commission determined that the procedure had constituted a violation of I.V.’s physical and psychological integrity, together with her rights to live free from violence and discrimination, of access to information, and to private and family life, in the understanding that reproductive autonomy formed part of those rights. According to the Commission, the State had not provided the presumed victim with an effective judicial remedy to address these violations. 2. Procedure before the Commission. The procedure before the Commission was as follows: a) Petition. On March 7, 2007, the Bolivian Ombudsman (hereinafter “the petitioner”), on behalf of I.V. (hereinafter “the presumed victim”), lodged the initial petition before the Commission. On March 6, 2015, the presumed victim decided to substitute the Ombudsman by the association, Derechos en Acción, represented by its Executive Director, Rielma Mencías Rivadeneira. b) Admissibility Report. On July 23, 2008, the Commission adopted Admissibility Report No. 40/08 in which it concluded that petition 270-07 was admissible.1 c) Merits Report. On August 15, 2014, the Commission adopted Merits Report No. 72/14, under Article 50 of the Convention (hereinafter also “the Merits Report” or “Report No. 72/14”), in which it reached a series of conclusions and made several recommendations to the State. a. Conclusions. The Commission concluded that the State was responsible for the violation of “the rights recognized in Articles 5(1), 8(1), 11(2), 13(1), 17(2) and 25(1) of the American Convention, in relation to the State obligation established in Article 1(1) of this instrument,” to the detriment of I.V. In addition, the Commission concluded that the State had violated Article 7 of the Convention of Belém do Pará and its paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (f) and (g), to the detriment of I.V. b. Recommendations. Consequently, recommendations to the State: i. the Commission made a series of Make full reparation to I.V. for the human rights violations established in the […] report, taking into consideration her opinion and her needs, including compensation for the pecuniary and nonpecuniary damage suffered; In that report, the Commission decided that the petition was admissible in relation to the presumed violation of the rights recognized in Articles 5(1), 8(1), 11(2), 13, 17 and 25 of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument, as well as in relation to Article 7 of the Convention of Belém do Pará. Cf. Admissibility Report No. 40/08, Case of I.V. v. Bolivia, July 23, 2008 (file of the procedure before the Commission, volume II, folios 256 to 272). 1