Persuaded by health personnel at her home to undergo a tubal ligation she did not want, Celia Edith Ramos Durand, a mother of three, died in 1997 of complications from the surgery. Her case, Celia Edith Ramos Durand v. Peru, was decided by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR or Court) on 18 December 2025. (At the time of this writing, the decision had not yet been published.) The petitioner alleges that this procedure was part of a state policy implemented during the 1996-2000 period as part of the “National Reproductive Health and Family Planning Program.” Between 1996 and 2001, more than 270,000 tubal ligations were performed under this program, the vast majority without free and informed consent—disproportionately targeting indigenous, rural, and economically disadvantaged women.

This case arrived before the Court more than two decades after the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights facilitated a friendly settlement in the related case of María Mamerita Mestanza Chávez v. Peru, another woman who died following a forced sterilization under the same state program. Despite the 2003 settlement, Peru failed to implement most of the substantive commitments it agreed to under the settlement—domestic proceedings remain mired in impunity, and a comprehensive reparations policy was never established.

As legal academics and practitioners dedicated to accountability for gender-based violence, we submitted an amicus curiae brief to the Court on these matters, hoping to contribute to its deliberations. The IACtHR ’s ruling will have significant implications for the thousands of victims of this program and for the development of international law concerning gender-based violence and reproductive autonomy.

Legal Classification and its Consequences for Impunity

A central legal issue was whether the enforced sterilizations, as a state policy, constituted a crime against humanity. Such a qualification requires demonstrating that the acts were part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against a civilian population pursuant to a state or organizational policy. An affirmative finding by the Court would align Inter-American jurisprudence with the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, which explicitly lists “enforced sterilization” as a crime against humanity.

However, it is important to note that the applicable law for events from 1996-2000 is customary international law—not the Rome Statute, which Peru ratified only in 2001. The prohibition of crimes against humanity, including forced sterilization, is not merely a treaty-based obligation; it is a peremptory norm of jus cogens. Dating back to the 1946 Nuremberg Medical Trial, which recognized forced sterilizations as crimes against humanity, the obligation to investigate and punish such crimes is now considered absolute and non-derogable. This distinction is vital: if these sterilizations are classified as crimes against humanity, Peru’s duty to prosecute transcends domestic legislative whims.

The evidence reveals more than a flawed health program; it unveils a systematic attack directed at a specific civilian population—an essential element of crimes against humanity. The Ministry of Health imposed sterilization quotas on regional health centers, medical personnel faced sanctions for failing to meet targets, and high-ranking officials, including President Fujimori, personally monitored implementation of the program.

The primary legal consequence of this classification would be to affirm the imprescriptibility of these crimes under customary international law, a principle the Court has consistently upheld in cases like Barrios Altos v. Peru. This is particularly crucial given Peru’s enactment of Law No. 32107 in August 2024. This law, promoted under a distorted interpretation of the principle of legality (nullum crimen sine lege), posits that “crimes against humanity” cannot be prosecuted for acts committed before its formal incorporation into Peru’s domestic law in 2002. However, this argument fundamentally misapprehends international law: because crimes against humanity were already prohibited under customary international law at the time of the violations, there is no retroactive application of criminal law—the conduct was already criminal even though committed before 2002.

 As documented by human rights organizations, this law poses a grave risk to justice. On November 18, 2025, the Constitutional Court of Peru ruled against claims that Law No. 32107 was unconstitutional, but did not reach the majority of votes required by domestic procedural law to affirm its constitutionality. Consequently, experts argue that the lower courts are not bound to apply the law. However, if implemented, it would mandate the closure and dismissal of all pending criminal proceedings for atrocities from the Fujimori era and the internal armed conflict, effectively creating a broad amnesty for perpetrators and dismantling decades of work by victims to achieve justice. A clear ruling from the IACtHR  in the Celia Ramos case would obligate Peruvian domestic courts to apply the conventionality control doctrine, which requires domestic judges to assess the compatibility of national laws with the American Convention and the Court’s binding interpretations of it, and to set aside any domestic provision that is found to be in violation.