CEDAW/C/89/D/170/2021 led to physical and psychological repercussions for the authors, constitute a form of gender-based violence against women and of intersectional discrimination based, inter alia, on the authors’ sex, gender, rural origins and socioeconomic status. 8.7 In addition, the Committee takes note of the argument by the State party that the criminal investigations are complex, involving thousands of testimonies and pieces of evidence. The Committee also takes note of the argument by the authors that, since 2002 at least, the various complaints and investigations have been shelved and reopened on several occasions, reflecting a lack of enhanced due diligence, and that the criminal proceedings have resulted in no guarantees or comprehensive reparations. In 2007, the Committee noted that investigation and prosecution for all acts of violence against women were not being conducted and that remedies for individual victims were not readily available. 48 The Committee recalls that, under article 2 of the Convention, a State may be responsible for private acts if it fails to act with due diligence to prevent violations of rights or to investigate and punish acts of violence, and for providing compensation to victims. 49 The Committee notes that the proceedings have been returned, shelved and closed on various occasions, making victims of the authors and their relatives once again. In that connection, the Committee recalls that, under article 2 (b), (c), (d) and (f), States parties have the obligation to take all appropriate measures to modify or abolish not only existing laws and regulations, but also customs and practices that constitute discrimination against women, 50 in particular Indigenous and rural women; that measures to prevent and combat discrimination against Indigenous women and girls must also integrate an intersectional gender perspective that takes into account the many factors that combine to exacerbate unequal treatment; 51 and that “the right to access to justice for women is essential to the realization of all the rights protected under the Convention”. 52 The Committee considers that, in the present case, the State party failed to act with due diligence to ascertain the facts related to the sterilization of the authors; that, despite being included in the Register of Victims of Forced Sterilization, the authors have not received full and adequate reparations, since the State party has not yet implemented a policy of comprehensive reparations; and that the State has not taken appropriate measures or acted with due diligence to guarantee a prompt and effective investigation or full and adequate reparations for the authors. 53 8.8 Consequently, acting under article 7 (3) of the Optional Protocol, the Committee is of the view that the facts before it reveal a violation of the rights of the authors under article 2, read in conjunction with articles 3, 10 (h), 12, 14 and 24 of the Convention. 8.9 The Committee notes that forced sterilization, when widespread or systematic, constitutes a crime against humanity under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. 54 While a conclusion of this nature is outside the Committee’s purview, it is noted that, on 9 August 2024, the State party adopted an Act preventing the prosecution of crimes against humanity committed prior to 1 July 2002. 55 The Inter-American Court of Human Rights has urged the State party to repeal that Act, as it violates international law. 56 The United Nations High Commissioner for Human __________________ 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 18/19 Concluding observations on the sixth periodic report of Peru, 20 February 2007 (CEDAW/C/PER/CO/6), para. 20. General recommendation No. 19 (1992), para. 9. See González Carreño v. Spain (CEDAW/C/58/D/47/2012), para. 9.7. General recommendation No. 39 (2022), para. 4. General recommendation No. 33 (2015) on women’s access to justice, para. 1. See N.A.E. v. Spain (CEDAW/C/82/D/149/2019), para. 15.7. Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, art. 7 (1) (g). Act No. 32107 of 9 August 2024. Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Case of Barrios Altos v. Peru and Case of La Cantuta v. Peru, Order (Provisional Measures and Monitoring Compliance with Judgment), 1 July 2024, paras. 50, 68 and 71. 24-19966