22 I.V. has stated that it was, during the visit of the resident doctor on July 2, 2000, that she became aware that the tubal ligation had been performed. 58 69. Indeed, during the hearing in this case, in response to the question posed by her representative as to whether, when she was in the operating theater, she had been given an explanation, consulted, or requested to provide informed consent, and when she became aware of her sterilization, I.V. stated: He never consulted me [referring to Dr. Torrico]; no explanation, nothing […]; the doctor made an inhuman decision about my life, about my body, he tied my Fallopian tubes, even using the most radical method, the Pomeroy method, destroying my dreams […] and also those of my family. […] The only two questions that I was asked during the caesarean section procedure were: first, where did they perform the first caesarean section, to which I responded: in Lima, Peru, and the second was whether I had suffered complications, to which I responded: no. […] Dr. Vargas [also] didn’t tell me anything; he said nothing during the whole surgical procedure […]. I found out on Sunday, July 2, during the medical visit by Dr. Marco Vargas Terrazas. He came over and I asked him how the operation had gone and he told me that it had gone well, but they had performed a tubal ligation, and I asked why they had done this and he told me that it was to safeguard my future life; then I asked whether the baby’s life or mine was in danger, and he said no, and then, when my husband came I told him what they had done to me and my husband was also outraged; he was really dismayed by everything they told us […]. My husband also asked him why they had not considered performing a vasectomy on him, and why had they performed a tubal ligation on me […].59 70. Consequently, there are contrary versions of the same fact because, while the doctor who performed the procedure affirms that he had obtained the informed consent of I.V., she indicates the contrary and denies having provided it, a matter that will be analyzed when examining the merits of this judgment (infra paras. 224 to 236). 71. I.V. and her daughter were released from hospital on July 5, 2000.60 C. Medical audits and report of the Ethics Tribunal of the La Paz Departmental Medical Association 72. As a result of the facts and the claims filed by I.V., three medical audits were conducted and the Ethics Tribunal of the La Paz Departmental Medical Association issued a ruling concerning the tubal ligation performed on I.V. following the caesarean section. C.1 First medical audit 73. The first medical audit was conducted by the Audit Committee of the Women’s Hospital.61 This committee issued its conclusions based on the reports prepared by the medical personnel present during the surgical procedure.62 Cf. Statement made by I.V. before the Inter-American Court during the public hearing held on May 2, 2016, and Statement made by I.V. on July 27, 2004, according to the record of the oral hearing issued by the Copacabana Trial Court (evidence file, volume XII, annex 1(c)) to the State’s final arguments, folios 4759 to 4761). 58 Statement made by I.V. before the Inter-American Court during the public hearing held on May 2, 2016. See also, Statement made by I.V. on July 27, 2004, according to the record of the oral hearing issued by the Copacabana Trial Court (evidence file, volume XII, annex 1(c)) to the State’s final arguments, folios 4759 to 4761). 59 Cf. Progress report of I.V. of the Women’s Hospital (evidence file, volume VII, annex 3 to the submission of the case, folio 2130). 60 61 Consisting of the Head of Training and Research, the Head of Neonatology, and a member of the Audit Committee. Cf. Report of the Audit Committee on the case of patient I.V. of August 22, 2000 (evidence file, volume VII, annex 4 to the submission of the case, folio 2136). 62