27 2. That, according to statements [...] there is evidence that [I.V.] gave her consent to the tubal ligation procedure. 3. That […] the Medical Audit Committee of the Women’s Hospital, established that [I.V.] was awake because she had been given epidural anesthesia […] and that she gave authorization for her surgical procedure, as confirmed and witnessed by the medical team […]. 4. [… T]he Departmental Medical Audit Committee fully supports the report issued by the Women’s Hospital [... establishing] that the tubal ligation procedure was performed for prophylactic purposes and to preserve future maternal well-being.”88 91. On March 14, 2003, it was declared that this decision was final.89 E. Criminal proceedings E.1 First oral proceeding 92. On August 31, 2002, the Public Prosecution Service filed criminal charges against the instructing physician for the offense of severe injuries to the detriment of I.V., established in paragraph 2 of article 270 of the Bolivian Criminal Code.90 The charges were based on the tubal ligation having been performed on I.V. arbitrarily and without abiding by the legal procedure in force for that type of irreversible surgical procedure. 91 The criminal proceedings were heard by the Second Trial Court of La Paz, which issued an order to start the trial on October 1, 2002.92 On October 26, 2002, I.V. asked to become a complainant and civil party to the proceedings.93 93. In a judgment of November 18, 2002, the Second Trial Court of La Paz unanimously convicted the physician, as author of the offense of severe injuries, to a suspended sentence of three years’ imprisonment.94 As grounds for this decision, the judgment found that there was no medical justification to perform the tubal ligation; that the statements reporting the verbal authorization of this procedure were contradictory, and that, even if this authorization had been given, it would have no legal value: It has been abundantly established that there was no rational or medical justification for performing the bilateral tubal ligation, given that the numerous adhesions and the incision in the uterus did not constitute an immediate and imminent risk to the patient's life. The possibility of a health complication would have occurred in the event of another pregnancy; in other words, from a legal standpoint, what is at stake is a pending hypothetical condition, that may or may not arise, particularly since, with birth control counseling, the couple might never have another pregnancy by using other contraceptive methods or, ultimately, deciding to opt for tubal ligation surgery, but WITH PRIOR INFORMED CONSENT. […] Unnumbered administrative decision issued by the Legal Advisory Services Unit of the La Paz Departmental Health Service on March 10, 2003 (evidence file, volume VII, annex 21 to the submission of the case, folios 2175 to 2176). 88 89 Cf. Decision of March 14, 2003 (evidence file, volume XII, annex 1(a) to the State’s final arguments, folio 4225). 90 Article 270. (Severe injuries). The author shall be sentenced to three to nine years’ imprisonment when the injury results in: […] 2. The permanent impairment of health, or the loss or the use of a sense, of a limb, or of a function. Cf. Charges, case No. PTJ894/2002 filed by the District Prosecutor of La Paz on August 31, 2002 (evidence file, volume VII, annex 22 to the submission of the case, folios 2178 to 2183). 91 Cf. Order to open the proceedings, Resolution No. 071/2002 of October 1, 2002 (evidence file, volume VII, annex 23 to the submission of the case, folios 2185 to 2186). 92 Cf. Brief presented by I.V. before the Second Trial Court on October 29, 2002 (evidence file, volume XII, annex 1(a) to the State’s final arguments, folio 4011). 93 Cf. Resolution No. 086/2002 issued by the Second Trial Court of La Paz on November 18, 2002 (evidence file, volume VII, annex 24 to the submission of the case, folios 2188 to 2195). 94