Amicus Brief: Ramos Durand and others vs. Peru
Click “Download PDF” to access the full brief
SUMMARY
The Vance Center for International Justice and the International Human Rights Committee submitted an amicus brief to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in Caso Ramos Durand y Otros vs. Peru (Case No. 13.752). The case focuses on the Peruvian government’s Programa Nacional de Salud Reproductiva y Planificación Familiar, which was in place from 1996 to 2000, and which was part of a policy to reduce population growth in the country. The program was rolled out mainly in rural areas and primarily targeted women and Indigenous communities. Over the course of four years, an estimated 272,000 women and 21,000 men were sterilized, often without their consent. Celia Edith Ramos Durand, a 34-year-old woman living in a small town in northern Peru, died on July 24, 1997, after medical providers working for the PNSRPF forcibly sterilized her. The brief analyzes the Court’s ruling in I.V. vs. Bolivia, and surveys informed consent standards under regional and international law as they relate to the rights to sexual and reproductive health, as well as when applied to other fundamental rights, such as the rights to information, health, liberty and security of person, freedom from cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment, non-discrimination and equality, and privacy.
REPORT
I. INTRODUCTION
1. The Cyrus R. Vance Center for International Justice (“Vance Center”) respectfully submits this brief to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (“Court”) as amicus curiae pursuant to Article 44 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure.
2. The Vance Center is a New York-based program that seeks to advance global justice by engaging lawyers across borders to support civil society, leading pioneering international justice initiatives, and providing pro bono legal representation to social justice non-governmental organizations (“NGOs”) worldwide.
3. This brief analyzes the Court’s ruling in I.V. vs. Bolivia. Additionally, this brief surveys informed consent standards under regional and international law as they relate to the rights to sexual and reproductive health, as well as when applied to other fundamental rights, such as the rights to information, health, liberty and security of person, freedom from cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment, non-discrimination and equality, and privacy.
4. Applying the Court’s own case law as well as the prevailing regional and international legal standards, in the present case, Ms. Cecilia Ramos Durand could not have consented to a tubal ligation in a free, voluntary, and autonomous manner. Additionally, medical providers never obtained Ms. Ramos Durand’s full and informed consent, as they failed to provide her with adequate information about tubal ligation, its risks, and other methods of contraception or give her sufficient time to consider the expected benefits and risks of the proposed irreversible — and, in her case, fatal — procedure. On the contrary, she was subjected to persistent pressure by health professionals, who visited her on multiple occasions to urge her to undergo the procedure, notwithstanding her repeated and explicit refusals.
5. Even if the Court were to find that Ms. Ramos Durand knowingly agreed to undergo a tubal ligation, it should conclude that medical providers failed to meet applicable standards on free and informed consent, vitiating any agreement that they may have received from Ms. Ramos Durand, and rendering her sterilization forced. Consequently, Peru’s actions deprived Ms. Ramos Durand and her family of their rights under the American Convention on Human Rights.