from incurring in acts that constitute gender violence, including those that occur during access to reproductive health care.90 In addition, under that Convention, “[e]very woman has the right to be free from violence in both the public and private spheres” and States must take special account of the vulnerability of pregnant women who are victims of violence.91 The Convention of Belém do Pará was adopted on June 9, 1994, two years after the events that gave rise to this case, and was ratified by Argentina on July 5, 1996, four years after the death of Cristina Brítez Arce. Thus, it is not possible to attribute international responsibility to the State for violating obligations under that treaty. However, in light of the State’s recognition of international responsibility, the Court will take the content of that treaty into consideration in order to characterize obstetric violence. 77. The Court finds that, under the Convention of Belém do Pará, women have the right to live a life free of obstetric violence and the States have the obligation to prevent, punish and abstain from practicing it, as well as to ensure that its agents act accordingly, taking into account the special vulnerability implied during pregnancy and the post-partum period.92 78. The Court finds that obstetric violence has been analyzed by various international bodies. The Special Rapporteur on the right of every person to enjoy the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health recognized that “[m]istreatment and violence against women experienced during pregnancy, facility-based childbirth and the post-partum period by medical practitioners, midwives, nurses and hospital staff, also called obstetric violence, is widespread.”93 The Special Rapporteur on violence against women, its causes and consequences identified obstetric violence as that “experienced by women during facility-based childbirth”94 and pointed out that it is manifested in the “lack of autonomy and decision-making.”95 79. Similarly, the Committee for the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, in its opinion on Communication No. 138/2018 presented by S.F.M.96 with respect to Spain,97 took up the 90 Cf. Advisory Opinion OC-29/22, supra, para. 160. Cf. Articles 2 and 9. Inter-American Convention to Prevent, Punish and Eradicate Violence against Women “Convention of Belém do Para.” 91 92 Cf. Case of Gelman v. Uruguay, supra, para. 97. Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, UN Doc. A/HRC/50/28, April 14, 2022, para. 44. 93 Special Rapporteur on violence against women, its causes and consequences. A human rights-based approach to mistreatment and violence against women in reproductive health services with a focus on childbirth and obstetric violence, UN Doc. A/74/137, July 11, 2019, para. 12. 94 95 Ibid., para. 30. 96 The victim in this case was identified by the Committee as S.F.M. (represented by Francisca Fernández Guillén). In this case, “the author maintains that obstetric violence is a type of violence that can only be exercised against women and constitutes one of the most serious forms of discrimination. Discrimination is based on gender stereotypes, the purpose of which is to perpetuate stigmas related to women’s bodies and women’s traditional roles in society with regard to sexuality and reproduction.” She also mentioned that “in its general recommendation No. 24 (1999) on women and health, that the only acceptable services are those that are delivered in a way that ensures that a woman gives her fully informed consent, respects her dignity, guarantees her confidentiality and is sensitive to her needs and perspectives. The Committee also emphasizes the importance of access to information to ensuring full enjoyment of the right to sexual and reproductive health.” The author notes that, “according to the European Court of Human Rights, restrictions on the adequate and effective provision of information jeopardize women’s right to physical and psychological health, with harmful effects in sensitive situations such as pregnancy, and that access to information about a person’s state of health must be provided immediately in order to ensure protection in situations where rapid developments in the individual’s condition occur and his or her capacity to take relevant decisions is thereby reduced, for example during a pregnancy or labour with complications.” Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, S.F.M v. Spain (Communication No. 138/2018), CEDAW/C/75/D/138/2018, February 28, 2020, paras. 3(3) and 3(4). 97 22