CEDAW/C/75/D/138/2018 parties 5 were contradictory, “with the result that, because those with technical knowledge offer different conclusions, the doubts and difficulties have been passed on to the judge.” The Court also emphasized that “the psychologist’s conclusions are based on details provided by her patient, whereas the doctor ’s conclusions are based on the clinical documentation that she examined”; that “it is the doctor who decides whether or not to perform an episiotomy, after seeing the perineum and the baby ’s head”; that there was no medical malpractice “since it is proven that all the required measures were taken in view of the events that unfolded, irrespective of whether the result for the mother (rather than the daughter) was entirely satisfactory; and that the degree of satisfaction will, in part, depend on the woman’s own perception or nature.” 2.17 On 27 November 2015, the author appealed against the previous decision, considering that the court of first instance had not fulfilled its duty to explain the reasons for the judicial decisions and had completely failed to a ssess the documentary and expert evidence related to obstetrics and neonatal care, instead accepting uncritically and unquestioningly the premises of the expert who had produced the report for the insurance company and of the head of obstetrics and gynaeco logy at the hospital in Lugo, disregarding the scientific documentary evidence and the author ’s medical history. 2.18 On 23 March 2016, the appeal was dismissed by the first section of the Galician High Court of Justice. The Court recognized that “there is no doubt that the judge perhaps made insufficient mention of the reports provided by the plaintiff and failed to give them due weight for purposes of comparison against the reports included in the case file and against others submitted during the proceedi ngs”, and that “it would have been preferable for the judge’s first assessment to be less general and generic”. The Court also noted that “the lack of a report by a legal expert makes analysis and assessment difficult, because the expert reports produced for each party emphasize the factors that support their respective arguments, whereas a technical determination must be clear, unquestionable, indisputable, undeniable and irrefutable in order to prove medical malpractice”. However, the Court concluded that the episiotomy had been justified, that “it seemed unlikely that the mother would have been able to give her consent under such conditions and in the middle of labour ”, and that, therefore, the rules on informed consent had not been violated. It also considered, without explaining why, that it was “perfectly understandable” that the father was not allowed to be present during the instrumental delivery. 2.19 On 25 April 2016, the author lodged an application for amparo* before the Constitutional Court. On 21 February 2017, the application was dismissed on the grounds that the case did not have “special constitutional significance”. Complaint 3.1 The author maintains that the pathologization of her labour through abuse of medication and medical interventionism (including early admission to hospital, numerous unnecessary vaginal examinations, administration of oxytocin without information or consent, the fact that she was not allowed to move around and was forced to give birth in the lithotomy position, the instrumental extraction and episiotomy performed without information or consent and the separation from her daughter) violated her rights under articles 2, 3, 5 and 12 of the Convention in that she did not have access to high-quality health-care services free from violence and __________________ * The writ of amparo is a remedy for the protection of constitutional rights. 5 These technical reports are the author’s medical history, the additional reports of the head of the hospital’s obstetrics and gynaecology service, and the expert reports produced for the plaintiff and for the insurance company that was a co-defendant. 20-04882 5/14