74 adequate and comprehensible information in order to obtain her free consent resulted in interference and intrusion in her body, the permanent loss of her reproductive capacity, and the violation of her autonomy in decisions related to her sexual and reproductive health. Furthermore, the nonconsensual sterilization resulted in the annulment of her right to freely take decisions concerning her body and reproductive capacity, completely losing control over her most personal and intimate decisions. It also violated essential values and aspects of the dignity and private life of I.V., because this sterilization was an intrusion into her autonomy and reproductive freedom and an arbitrary and abusive interference in her private life, violating her right of decision regarding the number of children she wished to have and the spacing between them, and her right to raise a family through her right to procreate. Consequently, the State violated the I.V.’s rights to personal integrity, to personal liberty, to dignity, to private and family life, of access to information, and to raise a family. 236. The Court stresses the gravity of this violation of women’s rights,309 because it is necessary to highlight practices such as those verified in this case that may hide negative or prejudicial gender stereotypes associated with health care services and result in legitimizing, normalizing or perpetuating non-consensual sterilizations that disproportionately affect women. 310 In this case, the Court considers that the medical decision to perform the sterilization procedure on I.V. without her prior, free, full and informed consent was prompted by a logic of paternalist care and under the preconception that the sterilization had to be performed while I.V. was in the peri-operative period following a caesarean section – even though her case was not urgent or a medical emergency –based on the idea that she would not take proper decisions in the future to avoid another pregnancy. The physician acted in this way in an unjustified paternalistic manner, by failing to acknowledge her as a moral decision-making agent and considering that, based on his medical opinion, he had to protect I.V., by taking the decision that he considered pertinent, without giving her the opportunity to weigh the options available to her; thus, annulling her ability to decide based on her autonomy. In addition, the physician acted with a stereotype rationale according to which only I.V. was responsible for the couple’s contraceptive actions. The fact that, for example, they had not mentioned the option that her husband could undergo a vasectomy, reveals that the physician considered that I.V. was the partner who played the main role in reproduction. Accordingly, the Court understands that the physician acted based on the gender stereotypes frequently applied to women in the health sector, distrusting their decision-making powers. 237. In ending this section, the Court considers that the facts that substantiate the alleged violation of Article 3 of the Convention have already been duly considered in the findings in this chapter, without it being necessary to issue a specific ruling on the right to recognition of juridical personality. Regarding the allegation of the violation of Article 13 of the Convention related to the right to know the truth, the Court finds that the factual basis for this decision does not comply with conditions that would make it applicable. In particular, the Court notes that the only case in which it has analyzed this right under the said article related to a specific action filed by the next of kin concerning egregious human rights violations, in order to access specific information related to access to justice. 311 Therefore, the Court concludes that it is not appropriate to issue a ruling in that respect. The Special Rapporteur on violence against women, its causes and consequences considered forced sterilization, “a method of medical control of a woman’s fertility without the consent of a woman,” to be a “severe violation of women’s reproductive rights.” Cf. UN, Report of the Special Rapporteur on violence against women, its causes and consequences, Ms. Radhika Coomaraswamy, Policies and practices that impact women’s reproductive rights and contribute to, cause or constitute violence against women, E/CN.4/1999/68/Add.4, January 21, 1999, para. 51. 309 Sterilization without a woman’s informed consent is a practice that has been verified in various countries and different contexts, as revealed by the cases that have been ruled on by other international organs (supra para. 204). 310 Cf. Case of Gomes Lund et al. (Guerrilha do Araguaia) v. Brazil. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 24, 2010. Series C No. 219, para. 201. 311