CEDAW/C/75/D/138/2018 3.7 Lastly, the author claims a violation of article 5 of the Convention. The Committee has stated in various concluding observations that persistent stereotypical attitudes about women’s roles, skills and responsibilities prevent them from fully enjoying all their rights and that this situation constitutes discriminatory treatment and is thus a violation of the rights to equality and non -discrimination. 16 The author maintains that she received the poor care that is the subject of the present complaint precisely because of the persistent gender stereotypes related to motherhood and childbirth: first the health personnel and then the judges took the view that women should follow doctors’ orders because they are incapable of making their own decisions. The medical history of the birth, the medical history of the post -partum period, the physiotherapy for the rehabilitation of the pelvic floor, the report by an expert in psychology and the two reports by experts in obstetrics that were available in this case all attest to the unnecessary nature of the actions carried out and the failure to provide information and obtain consent. The judge, however, merely referred to the report of the head of the hospital’s obstetrics and gynaecology service, accepting the premises of a person who had a direct interest in the outcome of the dispute without taking into account the absence of documents related to informed consent, and questioning the author ’s account of the events by describing the injuries and consequences she suffered as a mere matter of perception, thereby presenting a gender-stereotyped depiction of women as hysterical, mad and prone to exaggeration and whining. The author ’s request that the head of the hospital’s obstetrics and gynaecology service be disqualified as an expert witness on the grounds of lack of objectivity was ignored by the court, which based its conclusions on his report. 3.8 The above attitude contrasts with the empathy shown by the judge to the author’s husband when he stated in court that he had been deprived of sexual relations with his wife for two years. This reflects a stereotypical view of men’s and women’s sexual roles, in which women are merely passive subjects with a reproductive role. 3.9 The author recalls that the Committee has held States responsible for the use of gender stereotypes which violate women’s rights and prevent them from accessing justice on equal terms. 17 She maintains that stereotypes were applied in her case by both the health workers and the judicial officers, in violation of article 5 of the Convention. 3.10 The author requests individual reparation for the violations suffered as a measure of redress. Given that the attitudes and practices that perpetuate obstetric violence are a structural problem whereby obstetricians abandon the principles, obligations and duties that govern doctor-patient relations in any other field of medicine, the author also requests, as a measure of non-repetition, that the State party be ordered to produce studies and statistics and raise awareness of the issue among health professionals and legal officers in order to put an end to gender bias and violence against women in the area of obstetrics. The author also requests the Committee to draw up a general recommendation on obstetric violence, since it is a practice from which women are systematically suffering worldwide. State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 4.1 On 6 June 2019, the State party submitted its observations, contesting the admissibility of the communication and the fact that it reveals a violation of the Convention. __________________ 16 17 8/14 See A/55/38 and CEDAW/C/PRK/CO/1, para. 35. See A.T. v. Hungary (A/60/38, part one, annex III), V.K. v. Bulgaria (CEDAW/C/49/D/20/2008), González Carreño v. Spain (CEDAW/C/58/D/47/2012), Tayag Vertido v. Philippines (CEDAW/C/46/D/18/2008), Abramova v. Belarus (CEDAW/C/49/D/23/2009) and R.K.B. v. Turkey (CEDAW/C/51/D/28/2010). 20-04882