20. The petitioner claims that Bolivian Health Law MSPS-98 establishes that the fallopian tube ligature process “may be carried out as long as the client has been adequately counseled and that there is a record of their decision, with either their signature or finger print, on the Informed Consent document, and this should be included in the client’s medical record.” In this regard, the petitioner alleges that this document was never signed.4 The petitioner states that this document contains seven points and the client must declare that she has been informed about each method of family planning, including the benefits and limitations; be aware that surgical contraception is a definitive method; have been fully and clearly informed of the possible discomforts caused by the procedure, and it must be signed in the presence of a witness. 21. The petitioner says that during the prenatal checkups attended by I.V. and from the time that she went into the Hospital de la Mujer on July 1, 2000, she received no information of any sort concerning contraceptive methods and she was not asked to consent to a fallopian tube ligature. Nor was her partner either informed or consulted on the matter. 22. Furthermore, the petitioner says that the Code of Ethics and Medical Deontology of the Medical College of Bolivia states in its Article 37 that, “The sterilization of a person may only be carried out at the express, voluntary, and documented request of the person themselves, or when medical indications exist that have been strictly established by a specialist medical committee.” 23. The petitioner also adds that I.V’s partner only signed an authorization in the Hospital de la Mujer for a caesarian to be carried out on I.V., not a fallopian tube ligature.5 According to this document, other procedures could only be authorized in a situation where there was a high risk of losing the life of either the mother or the child. 24. The petitioner also argues that it is not coherent to claim that the complications which resulted from the operation put I.V.’s health at immediate risk, necessitating a sterilization procedure, because attending physicians stated that the alleged risk to I.V.‘s health would only materialize if she were impregnated again. 25. The petitioner mentions a range of international standards6 that protect the right of women to take decisions freely, voluntarily, and on an informed basis regarding their health, autonomy, and self-determination. The petitioner indicates that assuming, hypothetically, that the version presented by the members of the surgical team was correct – that I.V. was consulted during the operation and she agreed to it – her alleged consent would have been obtained under anesthesia and the stress of the operation, and would therefore not have met the basic requirements of the principle of informed consent. Therefore, the petitioner alleges that because Dr. Torrico had allegedly obtained a positive response from I.V. regarding the fallopian tube ligature during the operation itself, it cannot be considered informed consent. 26. The petitioner alleges that since July 4, 2000, the date on which I.V. was released from hospital, she has experienced pain in the area of the wound. He states that days afterwards, I.V. returned to the hospital for treatment, and days later so that her stitches could be removed, and complained to Dr. Vargas who dismissed it as unimportant. “Voluntary surgical contraception – Bilateral tubular occlusion. Informed Consent.” According to the petitioners included in the Bolivian Health Law MSPS-98: Voluntary surgical contraception, Volume 1, Bilateral Tubular Occlusion in Reproductive Risk, approved by the Ministry of Health in Ministerial Resolution No. 517, November 17, 1998. 5 Authorization by a member of the family for Surgery or Special Treatment, Appendix 45 of the communication dated March 7, 2007 from the petitioner. 6 The petitioner refers to the World Health Organization. Medical Criteria governing contraceptive eligibility, (3 rd edition), 2005, page 4: United Nations, Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, Communication 4/2004, A.S. vs. Hungary, CEDAW/C/36/D/4/2004, August 29, 2006; United Nations, Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women, Final Observations of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women. Peru A/53/38/Rev.1, July 8, 1998; United Nations, Final Observations of the Committee on Human Rights; Peru, CCPR/CO/70/PER, November 15, 2000, paragraph 21. 4 4