Informe jurídico sobre el Dictamen N°22/2009.Caso L.C. vs Perú
No hay miniatura disponible
Fecha
2022-08-10
Autores
Título de la revista
ISSN de la revista
Título del volumen
Editor
Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú
DOI
Resumen
El presente Informe tiene como objetivo presentar y analizar los principales argumentos
que empleó el Comité para la Eliminación de la Discriminación contra la Mujer al
resolver el caso L.C. vs Perú. Este caso es uno de los más importantes en materia de
protección de derechos humanos de las mujeres porque establece un precedente para
garantizar el acceso servicios de atención médica en condiciones de igualdad,
específicamente, al aborto terapéutico. El Comité declaró la responsabilidad internacional
del Estado peruano por la vulneración de los artículos 1, 2 c) y f), 3, 5 y 12 de la
Convención sobre la Eliminación de todas las formas de Discriminación contra la Mujer
(CEDAW). A partir del análisis realizado se obtuvo que, la negación al aborto terapéutico
a L.C. no fue jurídicamente válida. Debido a que, en primer lugar, L.C. recibió un trato
discriminador en la esfera de la atención médica. Ello, en tanto, por un lado, pese a que
se había determinado la urgencia de una intervención quirúrgica en su columna vertebral,
no fue operada por que dicha cirugía ponía en riesgo su embarazo. Por otro lado, se le
negó el acceso al aborto terapéutico, a pesar de que su caso se encontraba previsto como
tal. En segundo lugar, el marco normativo peruano de la época sí permitía a los operadores
de los servicios de salud practicar el aborto terapéutico; no obstante, no le brindaron el
referido servicio médico. Por último, no era necesario el agotamiento de recursos internos
para presentar la comunicación ante el Comité, pues el recurso de amparo no cumplía con
el requisito temporal necesario para garantizar el acceso al aborto terapéutico a L.C.
The purpose of this report is to present and analyze the main arguments used by the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women in resolving the case of L.C. v. Peru. This case is one of the most important in the protection of women's human rights because it establishes a precedent for guaranteeing equal access to health care services, specifically therapeutic abortion. The Committee declared the international responsibility of the Peruvian State for the violation of articles 1, 2 c) and f), 3, 5 and 12 of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW). From the analysis carried out, it was found that the denial of therapeutic abortion to L.C. was not legally valid. Because, in the first place, L.C. received discriminatory treatment in the area of medical care. On the one hand, despite the fact that the urgency of a surgical intervention on her spine had been determined, she was not operated on because such surgery put her pregnancy at risk. On the other hand, she was denied access to therapeutic abortion, despite the fact that her case was foreseen as such. Secondly, the Peruvian regulatory framework at the time did allow health service operators to perform therapeutic abortion; however, they did not provide her with this medical service. Finally, it was not necessary to exhaust domestic remedies in order to submit the communication before the Committee, since the amparo remedy did not meet the time requirement necessary to guarantee L.C. access to therapeutic abortion.
The purpose of this report is to present and analyze the main arguments used by the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women in resolving the case of L.C. v. Peru. This case is one of the most important in the protection of women's human rights because it establishes a precedent for guaranteeing equal access to health care services, specifically therapeutic abortion. The Committee declared the international responsibility of the Peruvian State for the violation of articles 1, 2 c) and f), 3, 5 and 12 of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW). From the analysis carried out, it was found that the denial of therapeutic abortion to L.C. was not legally valid. Because, in the first place, L.C. received discriminatory treatment in the area of medical care. On the one hand, despite the fact that the urgency of a surgical intervention on her spine had been determined, she was not operated on because such surgery put her pregnancy at risk. On the other hand, she was denied access to therapeutic abortion, despite the fact that her case was foreseen as such. Secondly, the Peruvian regulatory framework at the time did allow health service operators to perform therapeutic abortion; however, they did not provide her with this medical service. Finally, it was not necessary to exhaust domestic remedies in order to submit the communication before the Committee, since the amparo remedy did not meet the time requirement necessary to guarantee L.C. access to therapeutic abortion.
Descripción
Palabras clave
Mujeres--Discriminación, Discriminación sexual contra las mujeres--Perú, Aborto--Perú
Citación
Colecciones
item.page.endorsement
item.page.review
item.page.supplemented
item.page.referenced
Licencia Creative Commons
Excepto se indique lo contrario, la licencia de este artículo se describe como info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess