CEDAW/C/75/D/138/2018 demonstrates that the domestic judicial authorities did not perform an exhaustive analysis of the evidence presented by the author. 7.5 The Committee recalls that, under article 2 (a) of the Convention, States parties have an obligation to ensure the practical realization of the principle of equality of men and women, and that, under articles 2 (f) and 5, States parties have an obligation to take all appropriate measures to modify or abolish not only existing laws and regulations but also customs and practices that constitute discrimination against women. 30 The Committee considers that stereotyping affects the right of women to be protected against gender-based violence, in this case obstetric violence, and that the authorities responsible for analysing responsibility for such acts should exercise particular caution in order not to reproduce stereotypes. In the present case, the Committee observes that there was an alternative to the situation experienced by the author, given that her pregnancy had progressed normally and without complications and that there was no emergency when she arrived at the hospital but that, nevertheless, from the moment she was admitted, she was subjected to numerous interventions about which she received no explanation and was allowed to express no opinion. Furthermore, the Committee observes that the administrative and judicial authorities of the State party applied stereotypical a nd thus discriminatory notions by assuming that it is for the doctor to decide whether or not to perform an episiotomy, stating without explanation that it was “perfectly understandable” that the father was not allowed to be present during the instrumental delivery and taking the view that the psychological harm suffered by the author was a matter of “mere perception”, but that they did show empathy towards the father when he stated that he had been deprived of sexual relations for two years. 7.6 Consequently, acting under article 7 (3) of the Optional Protocol, the Committee is of the view that the facts before it reveal a violation of the rights of the author under articles 2 (b), (c), (d) and (f), 3, 5 and 12 of the Convention. 8. In the light of the above conclusions, the Committee makes the following recommendations to the State party: (a) Concerning the author: provide appropriate reparation, including adequate financial compensation for the damage that she suffered to her physical and psychological health; (b) General: (i) Ensure women’s rights to safe motherhood and access to appropriate obstetric services, in accordance with general recommendation No. 24 (1999) on women and health; and, in particular, provide women with adequate information at each stage of childbirth and establish a requirement for their free, prior and informed consent to be obtained for any invasive treatment performed during childbirth, except in situations where the life of the mother and/or the baby is at risk, thereby respecting women’s autonomy and their capacity to make informed decisions about their reproductive health; (ii) Conduct research into obstetric violence in the State party in order to shed light on the situation and thus provide guidance for publ ic policies to combat such violence; (iii) Provide obstetricians and other health workers with adequate professional training on women’s reproductive health rights; __________________ 30 20-04882 See González Carreño v. Spain (CEDAW/C/58/D/47/2012), para. 9.7. 13/14