genocide

Mrs. I.G., Mrs. R.H., and Mrs. M.K.

This Decree adopted the National Public Policy of Gender Equity (‘Política Pública Nacional de Equidad de Género’). It aims for the development of specific plans and programs that guarantee the rights of forcibly displaced women, including their right to a violence-free life. The policy also acknowledged the importance of the differential approach from the gender perspective, taking into account the particularities arising out of urban and rural context, Afro-Colombian, indigenous, and peasant women.

Three applicants, all Roma women, alleged that a public hospital sterilized them without their consent and that they were unable to obtain appropriate redress from the Slovakian authorities. Although the Court found that the third applicant’s children lacked standing to continue the proceedings in their mother’s stead, it ruled in favor of the first and second applicants. The first and second applicants argued that they had been denied their right to have a family because the hospital  sterilized them without consent.

The eight applicants in this case were all women of Roma ethnicity. They each suspected they had been sterilized during caesarian section deliveries at two different hospitals. Both hospitals denied the applicants’ requests to obtain copies of their medical records, and the applicants brought actions in different District Courts. The courts ordered the hospitals to allow access to the records and handwritten notes to be taken, but dismissed the request to make photocopies of the records. The Regional Courts both upheld the decision on appeal.

This law modified some articles of Law 599 from 2000 and 906 from 2004, and adopted measures that expanded access to justice for victims of sexual violence, especially for those who experienced it during the armed conflict. As such, it stated the conduct and behaviors that amount to sexual violence crimes and the way they must be judicialized.

The applicant was sterilized at age 17 during the birth of her second child. She claimed that she was coerced into signing the authorizations for the sterilization, segregated in the hospital based on her Roma ethnicity, and that the decision to sterilize her was discriminatory. The District Court dismissed the applicant’s civil action against the hospital on the basis that the sterilization was required to save her life and, therefore, did not need consent.

Section 321a (1) and (3) provide that a person who holds a woman captive who has been impregnated through the use of coercion, with the intent to influence the ethnic composition of a population or to commit other serious violations of international law, is punishable by imprisonment for a term of 5-15 years, or, if such an act results in the death of a person, a term of 10-20 years or life imprisonment. The abovementioned applies where such acts are performed as part of an extended or  systematic attack against a civilian population.

VC, a Roma woman, was forcibly sterilized in a state hospital in Eastern Slovakia during a cesarean section. While she was in the height of labor, hospital staff insisted that she sign a consent form for sterilization, without informing her about what the procedure entailed. She was only told that a future pregnancy could kill her and was pressured to immediately undergo the procedure. VC did not understand what she was agreeing to but fearing for her life, she signed the form. After learning that the sterilization was not medically necessary, VC filed a civil lawsuit in Slovakia.