5. The Commission received the petition on March 7, 2007 and assigned it number P-270-07.
On May 7, 2007, the Commission transmitted the petition to the State and granted a period of
two months for the State to present its observations. In communication dated July 10, 2007,
the petitioner provided information concerning the case.
6. On July 18, 2007, the Commission remitted the previous communication to the State and
required it to present information regarding the petition within one month. On July 17, 2007,
the Bolivian State requested an extension in order to reply to the petitioners’ observations. By
means of a communication dated August 14, 2007, the IACHR informed the Bolivian State that
the requested extension of thirty days had been granted.
7. By notes dated August 17, 2007, September 19 and 21, 2007, the State requested copies of
pages 12 and 13 of the petition and an additional extension of one month to lodge observations.
The petitioner, by communication dated August 21, 2007, provided information on the case.
8. On October 1, 2007, the Commission remitted to the State copies of pages 12 and 13 of the
petition, and informed it that the requested extension had been granted. By communication
dated November 1, 2007, the petitioner furnished information on the case. This information was
transmitted to the State on November 26, 2007 and the State was granted one month in which
to lodge its observations.
9. By communication dated December 4, 2007, the State lodged observations on the case which
were transmitted by the IACHR to the petitioner on December 18, 2007, and a period of one
month was granted for observations to be lodged. On January 29, 2008, the petitioner requested
an extension to present observations to the information presented by the State. By
communication dated February 25, 2008, the petitioner submitted information on the petition
which was transmitted to the State on April 1, 2008, with a period of one month for observations
to be lodged. As of the date of this report, the State had not presented observations.
III.
POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES
A.
Petitioner
10. The petitioner claims that the alleged victim was submitted to a surgical procedure of ligature
of the fallopian tubes in a public hospital without her informed consent and this was therefore
an involuntary sterilization, during which she permanently lost her reproductive capacity. The
petitioner adds that I.V. and her partner were informed once the procedure had taken place.
The petitioner also adds that the events have remained completely unpunished because of undue
and unjustifiable delays in the criminal process and that I.V. is still suffering the physical and
psychological consequences of that operation. The petitioner states that a decision such as that
of a ligature of the fallopian tubes is for a woman to make personally, and not for the state or
the doctor.
11. The petitioner states that the alleged victim, aged 35, had her prenatal checks during the
first three months of her pregnancy at the San Gabriel public hospital, and that from February
22, 2000 she continued with her checks in the public hospital, Hospital de la Mujer, where she
underwent several examinations. The petitioner states that the last check she had was on June
28, 2000, during which a caesarean was programmed for around July 3 because the baby was
the wrong way up.
12. The petitioner claims that on July 1, 2000, at around 3:50 p.m., I.V. presented as an
emergency at the Hospital de la Mujer, accompanied by her partner and her daughter because
her waters had broken, and she was attended by the doctors on duty. The petitioner alleges that
Dr. Rosario Arteaga carried out a vaginal sweep even though she had been warned by the alleged
victim that they should program a caesarian delivery.
2