CCPR/C/130/D/3639/2019 delivery was overdue and that she was going to be induced anyway. The author claims that she was naked at this time and that the hospital staff had been pressurizing her for several days. She says that she felt mentally exhausted and was conscious of the fact that, as her and her baby’s well-being were in the doctors’ hands, she could no longer contradict them. For this reason, she gave in and stopped protesting.2 6.2 The author adds that she requested epidural anaesthesia because she began to feel faint. She also needed other medication. The author states that there were many people in the room who had not introduced themselves or explained their role, which violates article 5 (c) and (e) of Act No. 44/2003 on the organization of health professions and runs counter to the case law of the European Court of Human Rights.3 6.3 The author claims that, after her baby had been born, the staff pulled out her placenta in a way that caused her pain despite her having asked them to stop, in response to which they told her to be quiet. The umbilical cord was also cut as soon as the baby was born, which was against her will and the guidelines issued by the Ministry of Health. 4 6.4 The author maintains that, as the baby was exhibiting high levels of bilirubin, the staff took him away from her instead of finding a way for the two of them to remain together, in violation of article 4 (a) and (c) of the European Charter for Children in Hospital (1986) and the case law of the European Court of Human Rights. 5 The author adds that she was not told what tests were being performed on the baby, in violation of article 4 (g) of the abovementioned Charter. According to the author, the doctor said that she was to blame for her baby’s problems because she had decided to have a late delivery. 6.5 The author adds that, as a result of being given uterotonic drugs, she had a haemorrhage and was given a blood transfusion, although no mention is made of this in her medical records. 6.6 With regard to the exhaustion of domestic remedies, the author affirms that the State party has not specified which domestic remedies were available to her or why, and to what extent, they would have been effective. In this regard, the author notes that there are no domestic remedies designed to safeguard against alleged violations of human rights. She adds that she should not be required to exhaust domestic remedies when there is no real prospect of success.6 The remedy of amparo is a subsidiary mechanism that does not pertain to the ordinary courts and protects only certain fundamental rights and freedoms set out in the Spanish Constitution. In this case, there were only four days between the author’s last gynaecological examination (on 29 July 2019, when she was at 41 weeks and 1 day of gestation) and the date on which she was supposedly scheduled to have her labour induced (41 weeks and 5 days of gestation). In that short period, she would have had to hire a lawyer and a legal representative, pay some of their fees in advance and grant them power of attorney. The author claims that, since she lacked the necessary financial means, she would have had to apply for free legal aid, which can take up to 10 days to be arranged. Furthermore, most courts in the State party are closed in August. In the light of the circumstances described, the author argues that, even if she had had time to file some kind of appeal against the alleged forced induction, that appeal would have been ineffective by the time a court had ruled on it, as she would have already given birth and her rights would already have been violated as a result. 2 3 4 5 6 4 The author submits information indicating that synthetic oxytocin should be used only in exceptional circumstances as it could cause fetal suffering, asphyxiation or even death. Available at www.elpartoesnuestro.es/informacion/parto/administracion--de--oxitocina--sintetica. The author cites European Court of Human Rights, Konovalova v. Russia (application No. 37873/04), judgment of 9 October 2014. The author cites Guía de Práctica Clínica sobre la Atención al Parto Normal, p. 29. Available at https://portal.guiasalud.es/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/GPC_472_Parto_Normal_Osteba_c ompl.pdf#_blank. The author cites European Court of Human Rights, Johansen v. Norway (application No. 17383/90), judgment of 7 August 1996; and P., C. and S. v. United Kingdom (application No. 56547/00), judgment of 16 July 2002. The author cites the Human Rights Committee, T.K. v. France, communication No. 220/1987; and M.K. v. France, communication No. 222/1987. GE.21-07305