27. The petitioner claims that after several weeks, I.V’s pain and discomfort continued and she was then examined by Dr. Carlos Pérez Guzmán, who ordered her to have an ultrasound scan. He states that that examination established that I.V. was suffering from acute endometritis and that her uterus contained placental remains. This was subsequently confirmed by a pathologist.7 As a result of this, the petitioner alleges, I.V. needed to undergo two D and Cs (dilation and curettage) and was hospitalized in the Clínica Achumaní.8 Furthermore, he says that two weeks later, I.V. was again admitted into the same clinic because of an abscess in the wall of her womb and bruising around the caesarian wound.9 The petitioner alleges that I.V. continued to suffer psychological and physical repercussions from the fallopian tube ligature. He also alleges that she is currently experiencing problems of chronic adnexitis, and that this situation has affected her relationship with her partner from whom she has been separated since August 2002. The petitioner states that her daughters, especially N., have suffered greatly and experienced great trauma as a result of everything that has happened. 28. The petitioner claims that these violations of I.V’s human rights arise from gender-based discrimination. He maintains that the doctors decided to submit I.V. to a fallopian tube ligature without her consent because they had a discriminatory, paternalistic, and patriarchal attitude to exploiting a woman’s vulnerability. He also maintains that I.V’s case is part of a widespread attitude of discrimination by Bolivian hospitals and health centers against women with regard to surgical contraception. 29. As a result of the events described, and at the request of the couple, the Permanent Human Rights Assembly of Bolivia, the Women’s Committee (Coordinadora de la Mujer), the Ombudsman (Defensor del Pueblo), and the Ministry of Health, three medical inquiries were held, a statement was made by the Ethical Committee of the Medical College of La Paz, and administrative proceedings were taken against Drs. Edgar Torrico and Marco Vargas. The petitioners state that the results of these audits and proceedings were contradictory in that some established the doctors’ liability while others did not. 30. Regarding the internal administrative proceedings, the petitioner claims that the Legal Advisory Services of the Departmental Health Unit of La Paz issued its final resolution 020/02 as part of Internal Administrative Proceeding against Drs. Edgar Torrico and Marco Vargas Terrazas, both officials of the Departmental Health Service of La Paz. Point 1 of this resolution established administrative liability against Dr. Edgar Torrico Ameller, and called for his dismissal from the institution. The petitioner also maintains that this resolution transcribes part of the statement made by Dr. Marco Vargas where he states that the fallopian tube ligature was necessary from a medical standpoint but incorrect from a legal standpoint because they had to wait until after surgery for I.V’s decision to authorize the sterilization. 31. Subsequently, in Administrative Resolution (unnumbered) dated March 10, 2003, regarding the appeal lodged by Dr. Torrico, Giselle Caba Espada, the Head of the Legal Advisory Services Unit of SEDES, La Paz, in application of Article 29 of Law 1178, annulled point 1 of Resolution 020/2003 dated July 25, 2002, and disposed a stay of proceedings relating to Dr. Edgar Torrico on the grounds that there was no evidence against him.. 32. The petitioner also claims that three criminal trials took place in which two judgments were issued against Dr. Edgar Torrico, the surgeon who took the decision to tie I.V’s fallopian tubes without her informed consent. However, these judgments were allegedly annulled by the Superior Court of Justice of La Paz. The petitioner states that there was a series of irregularities and delays which affected the criminal trials, including “errors in handling the file; a failure to notify and convene the citizen judges (jueces ciudadanos); failings in constituting the courts; dispatching the case to different jurisdictions on several occasions (…) Moreover, it is inconceivable how long it took for the file to be sent from one court to another (sic).”10 He states Pathology and Cytology Laboratory, Result of test on I.V. Dr. Wilge J Panoza Meneces, doctor-pathologist. La Paz, August 17, 2000. 8 Medical Certificate from the Clínica Achumaní, September 3, 2000. 9 Medical Certificate from the Clínica Achumaní, September 3, 2000. 10 Petition lodged by the Ombudsman of Bolivia, March 7, 2007, paragraphs 147-148 7 5