CEDAW/C/89/D/170/2021 planning decisions, 44 about their not being fit to be “good mothers” or about their offspring not being desirable. 45 Some healthcare providers also withhold information or mislead women into consenting to sterilization, acting with “gross disregard for [their] right to autonomy and choice as [patients]”. 46 The Committee notes that, as has been extensively documented and recognized in the report of the congressional investigative subcommittee (see para. 2.3 above), the forced sterilization in the 1990s of at least 314,000 women, most of whom were Indigenous, illiterate and/or from poor or rural areas, was part of a family planning policy that prioritized mass surgical contraception through health campaigns and the promotion of incentives for healthcare personnel. The Committee also notes that, in the present case, the State party has failed to provide information concerning the informed consent of the authors and has simply stated that it cannot demonstrate that the authors were not sterilized against their will, because th e events referred to are under investigation as part of ongoing criminal proceedings. 8.5 The Committee takes note of the allegations by the authors that the policies adopted by the State party have not allowed them to establish the truth, punish those responsible or obtain full reparations, and that their inclusion in the Register of Victims of Forced Sterilization was more than a simple manifestation of their desire to be added, since such inclusion was an acknowledgement by the State party that the violations in question had occurred. The Committee also notes that the authors provided the Registry with certificates verifying that they had been sterilized between 1996 and 1997, that they came from places where health campaigns had been conducted as part of the Programme on Reproductive Health and Family Planning, and that they had all reported physical and psychological repercussions consistent with the events described. 8.6 The Committee notes that, in 2003, in the context of the Mamérita Mestanza case (para. 2.4 above), the State party acknowledged its responsibility before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights; that, in 2015, it declared that the provision of support to victims of forced sterilization was of national interest and stipulated that the Registry of Victims of Forced Sterilization should be established; that, in the following years, it set up multisectoral committ ees and working groups recognizing that sterilizations constituted a serious human rights violation; that, in 2022, the High Court established the obligation to implement a policy of reparations for women included in the Registry; and that the Office of the Prosecutor has launched various criminal investigations into serious human rights violations, including investigation No. 14-2016, in which three of the authors have been included as alleged victims. However, the Committee notes that a reparations programme has not yet been implemented as provided for by the High Court and that the State party has failed not only to provide information on how the measures implemented have improved the authors’ life plans but also to indicate to what extent the authors have received full reparations, including with respect to the collective impact of forced sterilization on rural and Indigenous women. The Committee takes note of the argument by the State party that the authors’ right to full reparations is dependent not on their inclusion in the Registry of Victims of Forced Sterilization but on the outcome of the criminal investigations and that, in 2014, the Committee expressed its concern at the lack of redress and compensation for the victims of forced sterilization. 47 The Committee considers that the cumulative facts of the present case, in particular, all the events that __________________ 44 45 46 47 24-19966 Ibid., paras. 243 and 252. See also general recommendation No. 39 (2022) and general recommendation No. 24 (1999). Report of the Special Rapporteur on violence against women, its causes and consequences (A/74/137), para. 21. European Court of Human Rights, V.C. v. Slovakia, Application No. 18968/07, Judgment, 8 February 2012, para. 119. Concluding observations on the combined seventh and eighth periodic reports of Peru, 24 July 2014 (CEDAW/C/PER/CO/7-8), para. 21. 17/19