CEDAW/C/89/D/170/2021 force of the Optional Protocol, the consequences continued even after its ratification. They argue that the State party, despite having acknowledged in 2003 that the forced sterilizations of women committed between 1996 and 2001 represented serious human rights violations, has not carried out sufficiently diligent investigations to identify those responsible and punish them under criminal law, and has not implemented any measures that would allow the authors and their families to obtain full reparation. 3.3 The authors allege that they were captured through the use of violence, deception or coercion by State agents and sterilized without their consent, that the benefits and risks of those procedures were not explained to them and they were not offered alternatives, and that they received no post-operative medical assistance, all of which had serious consequences for their physical and mental health. The authors also allege that they belong to a vulnerable sector of the population, most of them being rural and Indigenous women, that the forced sterilizations affected their life plans and that they have suffered non-material damage as a result of a cultural context in which sterility is assumed to be a “punishment” that affects the status of women in their communities, in violation of articles 2, 3, 12, 14 and 24 of the Convention. 3.4 The authors allege that they suffer serious physical and psychological consequences as a result of the sterilizations and that the State party violated their rights under articles 12 and 14, read in the light of article 2 (c), (d) and (g) of the Convention, by failing to protect their right to health, by failing to take into account the particular needs of the rural and Indigenous population regarding access to sexual and reproductive health, by failing to guarantee free, prior and informed consent in a manner adapted to their language and customs, by failing to provide post -operative medical treatment, by failing to adopt measures to prevent the violation of those rights and by failing to make full reparation to the author s. They add that the State party failed in its duty to guarantee them a life free of violence. 3.5 The authors also allege that the Programme on Reproductive Health and Family Planning did not guarantee effective protection through either the national courts or any other type of institution, allowing the systematic abuse of power against women. The authors argue that, in addition to including them in the official registry as victims of forced sterilization, the State party has acknowledged its international responsibility and has assumed the obligation to investigate and punish, under its criminal law, those responsible for all forced sterilizations and to make full reparation for the damage caused. In addition, the authors allege that the forced sterilizations carried out between 1993 and 2001 in the State party constitute crimes against humanity and that, as such, there is an ex officio obligation on the part of the State party to investigate all those forced sterilizations. 12 They allege that the remedies have not been effective for investigating the matter adequately, determining responsibility and punishing those allegedly responsible for crimes against humanity for the forced sterilizations. In addition, the authors allege that they are in a vulnerable situation, that they are rural and that some of them are illiterate; the State therefore has a heightened duty to bring criminal cases taking into account the social and cultural context to which the authors belong. Although the cases of María Elena Carbajal Cepeda, Florentina Loayza Cárdenas and Rosa Loarte Sobrado were included in investigation No. 14-2016, the time frames related to that investigation have been excessive, the investigation has been closed and reopened on several occasions, and, after 24 years, no significant progress has yet been made. Lastly, the authors allege that the State party has not taken measures to enable them and their family members to obtain full reparation, in violation of articles 3 and 24, read in the light of article 2 of the Convention, since the State party has not created the necessary conditions for __________________ 12 24-19966 Constitution of Peru, art. 159. 7/19