CEDAW/C/50/D/22/2009 Disregard for the right to decide and control reproductive capacity in cases of therapeutic abortion 7.13 The views and wishes of the woman regarding the continuation of the pregnancy are fundamental, since even though the medical diagnosis is what provides the technical elements to know whether the pregnancy is in any way incompatible with the health of the pregnant woman, the determination of the gravity of the harm that its continuation could cause has a subjective component that cannot be ignored, and represents the personal level of risk to her health that the woman is prepared to assume. Furthermore, as in any other instance in which the State intervenes in a personal decision, such intervention should be legal and regulated in such a way that, following due process, the person affected has the right to be heard. The absence of such safeguards constitutes a violation of the right of protection from arbitrary interventions in decisions that, in general, relate to an individual’s privacy and autonomy. 7.14 In the present case, there was illegal and irrational interference in the decision of L.C. to terminate her pregnancy. The lack of regulation surrounding access to therapeutic abortion subjected L.C. to arbitrary action by agents of the State, which constituted a violation of her right to decide freely and responsibly the number of children she wished to have. Such interference therefore is a violation of the State party’s obligations under article 16, paragraph 1 (e), of the Convention. Relevance of the general recommendations issued by the Committee 7.15 The general recommendations issued by the Committee constitute the authorized interpretation of the Convention and the obligations it imposes on States, and are thus the best tool available to guide them in compliance with it. It is thus natural that, when a communication is submitted regarding violations of the obligations of States parties under the Convention, the standards of compliance used to evaluate the conduct of a State include not only the text of the Convention, but also the interpretations of its provisions made by the Committee responsible for its monitoring. For this reason, therefore, the author refers to the general recommendations, since they constitute a criterion for the evaluation of compliance of States with the Convention, in this case Peru. 7.16 Based on the foregoing, the author requests the Committee to declare that there has been a violation of the articles of the Convention referred to; to demand that measures to guarantee redress, satisfaction and non-repetition be established; to urge the State to adopt and implement the necessary legislative, administrative and judicial measures to guarantee the obligation to ensure the right to sexual and reproductive health of women without discrimination; and to hold the agents of the State responsible as appropriate. 7.17 On 31 March 2011, the author transmitted to the Committee a legal opinion prepared by the International Commission of Jurists, a non-governmental organization. It addressed topics relating to the obligations of States parties under the Convention and international human rights law in general to provide an effective remedy and redress, in particular regarding the enjoyment by women, under equal conditions, of the right to life, health and not to be subjected to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. The opinion recalled the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights in the cases Tysiac v. Poland and A.B. and C. v. Ireland, where the Court concluded that States should establish an effective and accessible procedure permitting access by women to legal abortion. In the absence of such a procedure, the Commission, in its opinion, concluded that the objection of failure to exhaust domestic remedies could not be raised against the author in the present case. 13