GENEVA - The policy of forced sterilisation in Peru, which took place during the 1990s’, amounted to sex-based violence and intersectional discrimination, particularly against Indigenous, rural, and economically disadvantaged women, the UN women’s rights committee has found. The UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) today published its Decision after reviewing a joint complaint filed by five victims who were forcibly sterilised between 1996 and 1997 as part of a State-led birth control policy in Peru. “The victims described a consistent pattern of being coerced, pressured, or deceived into undergoing sterilisations at clinics lacking proper infrastructure or trained personnel,” Committee member Leticia Bonifaz said, adding, “The procedures were carried out without informed consent from these victims, with some of them, especially those from remote areas, unable to read and speak Spanish, or fully understand the nature of the procedure.” One victim from Pichgas, Huánuco, for example, was stopped on the street by medical practitioners in October 1996. They took her, along with other women, to La Unión medical centre, approximately a two-hour walk from her village. She stated that she was illiterate and did not sign anything. She was put to sleep, and when she woke up, nurses told her, “You won’t be having children now, we’ve cured you”. She felt strong pains in her abdomen but was immediately discharged and had to walk back home without any post-operative care. When her husband found out that she had been sterilised, he abandoned her. The victims claimed that the forced sterilisations they underwent had severe and permanent consequences for their physical and mental health. They took their case to the Committee in 2020, stating that Peru had violated their rights under the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women due to the lack of effective investigations, accountability, and adequate reparations. While the State party argued that the sterilisation program was part of a broader reproductive health policy and that procedures were also performed on men, the Committee noted the fact that over 300,000 women, primarily rural and Indigenous, as opposed to about 25,000 men, were forcibly sterilised. The Committee also found that forced sterilisation constituted sex-based violence against women, as male and female sterilisations differ substantially in the nature of the intervention and the surgical risks involved. It noted, in particular, that the victims were sterilised by non-specialised medical staff and in inadequate sanitary conditions. The Committee also recognised that the sterilisation program was intersectional discrimination, disproportionately targeting Indigenous, economically disadvantaged and rural women. Victims told the Committee that they were intercepted and forced onto trucks like cattle to temporary health centres, where, as one of them described, “medical practitioners sharpening knives and cutting us like animals.” “Forced sterilisations were carried out as part of a systematic and generalised attack against rural and Indigenous women, and the policy resulted in the nullification and substitution of their reproductive autonomy,” Bonifaz added. The Committee also concluded that Peru’s failure to fulfil its obligations to duly investigate these violations and compensate for victims of forced sterilisation are acts of discrimination against women. It urged the State party to accelerate and expand its investigations, provide financial compensation and psychological support, and implement a comprehensive reparation program for victims. The Committee noted that widespread or systematic forced sterilisation could constitute a crime against humanity under the Rome Statute. It raised its concern about a law promulgated by the State party in August, which prevents the prosecution of crimes against humanity committed before 2002. The Committee recalled that both the Inter-American Court of Human Rights and the UN Human Rights Office had called upon the State party to annul this bill as it contravenes international law. For more information and media requests in Geneva, please contact Vivian Kwok at vivian.kwok@un.org UN Human Rights Office Media Section at ohchr-media@un.org Background The Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women monitors States parties’ compliance with the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, which to date has 189 States parties. The Committee is made up of 23 members who are independent human rights experts from around the world elected by the States parties, who serve in their personal capacity and not as representatives of States parties. The Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women allows the Committee to receive and examine complaints by individuals or groups of individuals under the jurisdiction of a State party to the Optional Protocol, claiming to be victims of a violation of any of the rights set forth in the Convention. To date, 115 States have ratified or acceded to the Optional Protocol. The Committee’s views and decisions on individual communications are an independent assessment of States’ compliance with their human rights obligations under the Convention.