The jurisprudential line of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in cases of obstetric violence: Critique and proposal of a new framework to determine human rights violations

Abstract

The article aims to critique the jurisprudential approach of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in cases involving human rights violations committed through obstetric violence. The methodology used is a  analysis of the rulings issued and the elements employed to substantiate human rights, the individual treatment of cases as isolated events, and the lack of application of intersectional and gender perspectives as criteria for the interpretation and enforcement of rights.  The hermeneutic method is integrated to complement the case commentary, varying the analytical elements to review the facts of each case, followed by the elements the Court considered in reaching its decision, and the substantive application and interpretation of the human rights it deemed violated. The article seeks to highligh the need for a theoretical framework that supports the recognition of the right of women and pregnant people to live free from violence is emphasized, going beyond the limitations present in the rulings of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights.  Key concepts such as reproductive justice and intersectionality are introduced, which are fundamental for addressing violations of reproductive rights.