CEDAW/C/75/D/138/2018 Background 1. The author of the communication is S.M.F., a Spanish national born on 25 June 1976. The author maintains that Spain violated her rights under articles 2, 3, 5 and 12 of the Convention through the obstetric violence of which she was a victim in hospital during childbirth. The Convention and the Optional Protocol thereto entered into force for the State party on 4 February 1984 and 6 October 2001, respectively. The author is represented by counsel, Francisca Fernández Guillén. Facts as submitted by the author The author’s pregnancy, delivery and post-partum period 2.1 In December 2008, the author became pregnant. Her pregnancy was normal and well-monitored, and reached full term without problems. On 26 September 2009, when the author was 39 weeks and six days pregnant and having prodromal contractions, 1 she went to a public hospital at 1.45 p.m. simply to receive guidance, as she was not in the active phase of labour. When she arrived at the hospital, however, she was subjected to a series of interventions, all of which were unnecessary and we re carried out without providing her with information or obtaining her consent. These interventions had a significant adverse effect on her physical and mental health, her psychological integrity and the health of her baby. She was admitted and a first dig ital vaginal examination was carried out immediately. 2 She was then moved to another room that contained six other women and that her partner was not allowed to enter. An hour later, she underwent a second vaginal examination; subsequently, at 5.20 p.m., a third vaginal examination was performed, without her consent being sought. 2.2 In the early hours of the morning of 27 September 2009, a fourth digital vaginal examination was performed. A fifth examination was carried out at 10.15 p.m. that day, and a sixth less than an hour later. 2.3 At 1.40 a.m. on 28 September 2009, the author underwent a seventh digital vaginal examination, which indicated that she was entering the active phase of labour. According to the author, this would have been the right time for her to be admitted to hospital. However, she had at this point been in hospital for 36 hours and had already undergone seven digital vaginal examinations, putting her at risk of infection. 3 2.4 Around an hour later she underwent an eighth vaginal exa mination, and after a further 25 minutes she was given intravenous oxytocin to induce, stimulate or bring forward labour without her consent being requested and, therefore, without being informed of oxytocin’s adverse effects. The oxytocin led to an increase in pain and to convulsions, frequent dark vomiting, shivering and fever, and the fetal monitoring recordings became worrying. At 5.15 a.m., a ninth vaginal examination was performed while she continued to suffer from vomiting and fever. Lastly, just bef ore 6 a.m., she was transferred to the delivery room, where she underwent a tenth vaginal examination. 2.5 The author asked to sit up to give birth but was not allowed to do so. Without explanation or information, the medical staff made a cut in her vagina with a pair of scissors and extracted her daughter with a ventouse. __________________ 1 2 3 2/14 Before labour itself begins, there is a stage at which women may have mild, irregular contractions that are not part of labour but prepare the body for labour. Some women do not even notice them. A digital vaginal examination consists in the insertion of one or more fingers into a pregnant woman’s vagina to measure the parameters of the dilation phase. See Ministry of Health and Social Policy, Guía de práctica clínica sobre la atención al parto normal, p. 63. 20-04882

Select target paragraph3