CEDAW/C/75/D/138/2018 3.4 With regard to the right to give consent, the Committee states, in its general recommendation No. 24 (1999) on women and health, that the only acceptable services are those that are delivered in a way that ensures that a woman gives her fully informed consent, respects her dignity, guarantees her confidentiality and is sensitive to her needs and perspectives. The Committee also emphasizes the importance of access to information to ensuring full enjoyment of the right to sexual and reproductive health. The author notes that, according to the European Court of Human Rights, restrictions on the adequate and effective provision of information jeopardize women’s right to physical and psychological health, with harmful effects in sensitive situations such as pregnancy, 12 and that access to information about a person’s state of health must be provided immediately in order to ensure protection in situations where rapid developments in the individual’s condition occur and his or her capacity to take relevant decisions is thereby reduced, 13 for example during a pregnancy or labour with complications. Lastly, the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights states, in its general comment No. 14 (2000), on the right to the highest attainable standard of health, and its general comment No. 22 (2016), on the right to sexual and reproductive health, that a lack of information on issues related to the sexual and reproductive health of women prevents them from effectively exercising their human rights. 3.5 The author claims that the State party has violated articles 2 (b), (c), (d) and (f) and 12 of the Convention because of the inappropriate treatment she received during and after childbirth and because the judicial remedies she sought subsequently were ineffective. When the author decided to bring her case to court, a long process began that was imbued with stereotypes regarding the behaviour expected of her as a submissive, obedient woman without the capacity to discern what was best for her and make the right decisions. In spite of all the evidence and reports provided by the author, which demonstrated the cause-and-effect relationship between the health service’s actions and the harmful outcome, the administrative and judicial authorities gave credence only to the reports provided by the hospital, taking the view that the psychological harm suffered by the author was a matter of mere perception. She maintains that these stereotypes distorted the judge’s discernment and resulted in a decision based on preconceived beliefs and myths rather than facts. She further maintains that the State party’s failure to implement health policies effectively is perpetuating gender stereotypes and discrimination against women, 14 highlighting also that the State party has not yet criminalized obstetric violence, as various other countries have done. She notes that, in its general recommendation No. 24 and its general recommendation No. 28, on the core obligations of States parties under article 2 of the Convention, the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women emphasizes States parties’ obligation to respect, protect and fulfil women ’s rights and take appropriate legislative, judicial, administrative, budgetary, economic and other measures to ensure that women realize their rights to health care. 3.6 The author also alleges a violation of article 3 of the Convention in that she was not allowed her to give birth in a manner consistent with respect for her human rights. She recalls that, since 1985, WHO has been urging Governments to promote obstetric care services that reflect critical attitudes towards technology and that respect the emotional, psychological and social aspects of birth. 15 __________________ 12 13 14 15 20-04882 See European Court of Human Rights, Open Door and Dublin Well Woman v. Ireland, Application No. 14234/88; and Application No. 14235/88, Judgment of 29 October 1992, para. 77. See European Court of Human Rights, R.R. v. Poland, Application No. 27617/04, Judgment of 26 May 2011, para. 197. See A/55/38, para. 60. WHO, “Appropriate technology for birth”, The Lancet, vol. 326, issue 8452, 24 August 1985. 7/14