‘Historic milestone' as court hears the horrors of Peru's forced sterilisation programme
During the 1990s, Peru's government carried out a ruthless campaign of forced sterilisation, depriving hundreds of thousands of women of the right to bear children.
Now, for the first time, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights has held a public hearing on the abuses – a case hailed as a 'historic milestone': Celia Ramos vs Peru.
Celia Ramos was, like most affected by the mass sterilisation scheme, a woman living in poverty. Houses in her village of La Legua, Piura, were made of canes and mud, had limited electricity and no sewage system. Yet despite the hardships, Ramos, a mother to three girls, was a woman 'full of life,' her eldest recalls.
Then, in July 1997, 34-year-old Ramos was sterilised – despite repeatedly refusing – as part of the National Reproductive Health and Family Planning Programme. Nineteen days later, after suffering respiratory arrest from medication used during the operation, she died.
'It was very abrupt – she was young and healthy and cheerful,' said daughter Marisela Monzón Ramos, who was 10 at the time.
'The entire family was shaken. My grandmother had to be sedated because the pain was too great. We felt the impact at every level.'
Ramos was one of at least 270,000 women sterilised under the national programme, launched and overseen by then-president Alberto Fujimori and his health ministers between 1996 and 2001. The Peruvian government has argued the sterilisation programme was part of a broader reproductive health policy, claiming it would decrease poverty, lower maternal and infant mortality rates, and curb fertility.
But estimates suggest fewer than one in ten of those sterilised gave consent, while most of those affected were poor and indigenous, and often illiterate or non-Spanish speaking.
Ramos' ordeal began with a visit to the local health centre for a routine check-up, where nurses encouraged her to undergo sterilisation – which she refused. According to family testimony, health workers then visited Ramos' home at least five times to 'harass' her into the procedure.
'They came insistently on several occasions,' said Monzón Ramos told the court on Thursday. 'I thought, why do they come so much looking for my mother? She didn't want to have the procedure.'
Carmen Cecilia Martínez, an associate director for legal strategies at the Centre for Reproductive Rights (CRR), which represents the family, said that health workers were 'under pressure to meet 'goals' that were imposed to execute the national policy'.
Lawyers say doctors were given compulsory sterilisation quotas and received financial incentives for performing the operations. 'The doctors obeyed a scale of orders that were controlled by the highest level of the country. We have evidence of the goals and quotas,' María Ysabel Cedano García, who also represents Ramos's daughters, told the Telegraph last year.
Testimonies reveal that thousands of women were harassed and threatened into undergoing the procedures, with many blackmailed, and others tied down, blindfolded and knocked out with horse tranquilliser.
Ramos underwent a tubal ligation on July 3. Her legal team – which also includes DEMUS (The Legal Study for the Defense of Women's Rights) and the Centre for Justice and International Law – insists she never gave consent.
'She was subjected to forced sterilisation,' said Martínez. 'The health centre was unfit for any medical procedure, the conditions were precarious, and she died.'
Peru's Ombudsman's office has linked 18 deaths to the scheme.
Last year, the Telegraph reported on the ongoing fight for justice. Florentina Loayza recalled how at the age of 19 she was sterilised under the pretence of receiving vaccinations. 'The doctor put a drip in my arm and I fell unconscious. That is when they mutilated me,' she said. 'Since then, I have been living in hell.'
In another case, 27-year-old Mavila Rios De Rengiro, went to a clinic believing she was having a smear test. 'They told me I was having a pap smear, and then they locked us in,' she said. 'I was afraid. The doctor didn't speak to me. I woke up in terrible pain and with a lot of blood.'
It took years for the scale of abuse in Peru to become public knowledge, partly because it unfolded against the backdrop of a brutal internal conflict that left nearly 70,000 dead. Many of Fujimori's supporters continue to deny that forced sterilisations ever took place.
The Ramos case was first brought before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights in 2010. In 2021, the Commission declared the Peruvian State responsible for violating Ramos' rights and recommended reparations. However, Peru failed to act, and in 2023 the case was referred to the Inter-American Court.
'This is a historic opportunity to establish the responsibility of the Peruvian state – not only for multiple human rights violations committed against Celia Ramos but also for the thousands of affected women,' said Martínez.
In 2024, a landmark UN commission ruling concluded that Fujimori's policy amounted to sex-based violence and intersectional discrimination. It said that widespread and systematic forced sterilisation could constitute a 'crime against humanity' under the Rome Statute.
Yet the CRR said that the Peruvian State 'adopted a denialist position' during Thursday's hearing. 'It denied that forced sterilisations were systematically committed and questioned the existence of human rights violations affecting thousands of women,' it said.
Nancy Northup, the president of the CRR said that the 'decades of silence have only prolonged the cruelty'. 'Every survivor, and those like Celia Ramos who tragically did not survive, deserves her day in court.'
Ramos's legal team have requested the court declare the Peruvian state responsible for committing crimes against humanity and for violating multiple rights, including the right to life, personal integrity and health, reproductive autonomy and protection of Ramos and her family.
María Elena Carbajal, who was also a victim of the programme, said that the 'road to justice is long'. 'It's been over 28 years of uncommitted and unaccountable governments,' she said.
Monzón Ramos said she and her sisters hoped that 'after nearly three decades since our mother's death, the truth of what happened will be acknowledged'.
'That justice will be done, that a real and thorough investigation will be opened, and that the State will recognise and repair the harm we have suffered,' she said.
Protect yourself and your family by learning more about Global Health Security
Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

36 minutes ago
Peruvian migrant acquitted in the first trial over the new militarized zone at US-Mexico border
EL PASO, Texas -- A Peruvian woman who crossed the U.S. border illegally was acquitted Thursday of unauthorized access to a newly designated militarized zone in the first trial under the Trump administration's efforts to prosecute immigrants who cross in certain parts of New Mexico and western Texas. Adely Vanessa De La Cruz-Alvarez, 21, was arrested last month near the West Texas town of Tornillo after she entered the U.S. from Mexico by walking across the riverbed of the Rio Grande, court documents show. In addition to being charged with entering the country illegally, she was charged with accessing a military zone. She is among several other immigrants who have been charged under the law since President Donald Trump's administration transferred oversight of a strip of land along the border to the military. It is as part of a new approach the Department of Justice is taking to crack down on illegal immigration. The Associated Press left messages Thursday with De La Cruz-Alvarez's attorney, Veronica Teresa Lerma. The lawyer told The Texas Tribune the acquittal is significant. 'Hopefully, this sets the tone for the federal government,' Lerma said, 'so they know what the El Paso community will do with these charges.' Even before the woman's case went to trial, federal magistrate judges in neighboring New Mexico had dismissed similar cases, finding little evidence that immigrants knew about the zones. Lerma was convicted of entering the country illegally and was already facing deportation, but could have faced up to 18 months in prison for entering the militarized zone. Despite the verdict, U.S. Attorney Justin Simmons of the Western District of Texas said his office will continue to aggressively prosecute National Defense Area violations. 'At the end of the day, another illegal alien has been found guilty of illegally entering the country in violation of the improper entry statute and will be removed from the United States,' Simmons said in a statement. "That's a win for America." The administration wants to sharply increase the removal of immigrants who are in the U.S. illegally as Trump seeks to make good on his pledge of mass deportations. The administration has deployed thousands of troops to the border, while arrests have plunged to the lowest levels since the mid-1960s.

Epoch Times
4 hours ago
- Epoch Times
First Illegal Immigrant Tried for Entering Military Border Zone Found Not Guilty
The first illegal immigrant tried for entering the newly created military zone along the southern U.S. border was found not guilty on June 5. Peruvian national Adely Vanessa De La Cruz-Alvarez, 21, was arrested in May in West Texas after entering the United States from Mexico by walking across the Rio Grande riverbed, according to court documents. While she was convicted by a jury of entering the country illegally and faces deportation, she also faced a second charge of entering restricted military property, a petty misdemeanor, of which the jury found her not guilty.

Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
Jury rejects border military trespassing charge
Jun. 5—In two words, an El Paso jury on Thursday rendered a blow to the Trump administration's new attempt to charge migrants with additional crimes for crossing illegally into the U.S. at the Texas and New Mexico international borders. The "not guilty" verdict in U.S. Magistrate Court in El Paso came in the case of a Peruvian woman charged with the petty misdemeanor of entering restricted military property when she crossed into the U.S. on May 12 west of Tornillo, Texas. The jury did convict Adely Vanessa De La Cruz-Alvarez of the charge of illegal entry, and U.S. Magistrate Judge Laura Enriquez dismissed the third charge of violation of a security regulation. It was one of the first times, if not the first, that average citizens have weighed in on the new "novel" approach to immigration enforcement at the U.S. border with Mexico. The Department of Defense, at the behest of the White House, established temporary military zones in April adjacent to the international border. The defense areas stretch about 180 miles in New Mexico and 63 miles in western Texas, and signs are posted about every 100 feet warning of the restricted zones. "This is a victory," said Veronica Lerma, one of the El Paso defense attorneys in the case. "We hope this sends a message that there are attorneys willing to set these case-for-jury trials and let the community decide." The jury deliberated for more than five hours after a two-day trial. Efforts to reach the U.S. Attorney's Office in El Paso for comment weren't successful Thursday. Lerma said her 21-year-old client, captured after she walked across the Rio Grande riverbed from Mexico, will likely be deported back to her home in Peru. She was sentenced to time served on the illegal entry conviction. "She was crying and hugged us (upon hearing she was acquitted of the trespass charge)," said another defense attorney, Shane McMahon. Conviction on the petty misdemeanor would have carried a prison term of up to six months. The violation of a security regulation charge carries up to a year in prison. The new regulations are part of the Trump administration's push to deter undocumented immigrants from entering the country illegally. The potentially stiffer penalties, coupled with threats of mass deportations — for some immigrants to El Salvadoran prisons — are all part of a larger plan to reduce unlawful crossings to zero. "Many of these aliens unlawfully within the United States present significant threats to national security and public safety, committing vile and heinous acts against innocent Americans," reads an executive order, "Protecting the American People from Invasion," signed on President Donald Trump's first day in office. "Others are engaged in hostile activities, including espionage, economic espionage, and preparations for terror-related activities. Many have abused the generosity of the American people, and their presence in the United States has cost taxpayers billions of dollars at the Federal, State, and local levels." Before this new militarized zone, those convicted of illegal entry, typically charged for first time offenders, are deported after serving a brief stint in jail awaiting resolution of their cases. Defense attorneys argued that there was no evidence that De La Cruz knew the border area she entered was military property. Federal prosecutors contended that there was no need to prove she saw the signs or had specific knowledge because she intended to willfully violate the law by crossing illegally into the U.S. No such jury trials have occurred in New Mexico, according to court records. An estimated 700 cases involving military trespass violations at the New Mexico National Defense Area have been filed by the U.S. Attorney's Office, but the prosecutions have been rocky. Earlier this week, the U.S. Attorney's Office in New Mexico struck out when attempting to reinstate dozens of the military trespass charges dismissed by the state's chief U.S. Magistrate judge in Las Cruces on May 19. U.S. District Judge Sarah M. Davenport of New Mexico ruled Monday that there was no legal avenue to appeal because of the way the cases were charged. The judge didn't address the primary argument being raised in such cases: that the defendants didn't know that the border area they entered was a military property. Davenport wrote that the charges dismissed by Chief U.S. Magistrate Judge Gregory Wormuth pertained to his ruling on a criminal complaint. Wormuth found the government lacked probable cause to bring military trespassing-related charges against a woman from Uzbekistan arrested in southern New Mexico in May. Davenport concluded that because a criminal complaint was the mechanism by which the charges were filed, the government had no legal right to appeal. Asked about the ruling, U.S. Attorney Ryan Ellison of New Mexico told the Journal through a spokeswoman on Thursday, "We remain committed to the commonsense principle that border security is national security. Every nation has the right and obligation to know exactly who and what is coming across its borders. While we respectfully disagree with the adverse rulings from the Court, the United States Attorney's Office is considering all available next steps — including various avenues of appeal — and will act with confidence in the merits of our position. Together with our military and Border Patrol partners, we have already made tremendous strides towards achieving operational control of our southern border." Davenport stated that the U.S. Attorney's Office can simply file what is known as a criminal information and continue such prosecutions. And, in recent weeks, that's what federal prosecutors have done in hundreds of cases. By filing criminal charges via an information, "it takes it out of a magistrate's hands," said McMahon on Thursday. But that could lead to the cases going to trial, as happened in El Paso.