A 17 year old was diagnosed with an anencephalic fetus. Her hospital physician recommended a lawful therapeutic abortion, but the hospital director refused, forcing her to carry to term. The newborn died four days after birth, and the 17 year old suffered severe physical and psychological harm. Peru offered no effective administrative or judicial remedy and did not cooperate before the Committee.
Karen Noelia Llantoy Huamán, a 17-year-old Peruvian, decided to terminate her pregnancy when she discovered that carrying her anencephalic fetus to term would pose serious risks to her health. When she arrived at Archbishop Loayza National Hospital in Lima to obtain the abortion procedure, the hospital director refused to allow the procedure because article 119 of the Criminal Code permitted therapeutic abortions solely when termination was the only way of saving the mother’s life or avoiding serious and permanent damage to her health.
An 11-year-old girl was repeatedly raped by a 34-year-old man. As a result, she became pregnant and consequently attempted to commit suicide by jumping from a building. She survived the suicide attempt but sustained serious injuries which required emergency surgery. The hospital declined to perform the surgery based on the risk posed to the pregnancy, and refused to perform an abortion despite that therapeutic abortion is legal in Peru and that the pregnancy posed a danger to her physical and mental health. As a consequence, she was completely paralyzed from the neck down.
An employee alleged that her employer fired her because she was pregnant. The employer sought an annulment of the previous decisions. The Supreme Court rejected the employer’s request, acknowledging that although the law requires an employee to notify an employer of their pregnancy in writing, this requirement is not enforceable when the pregnancy is physically evident. The plaintiff sought nullification of her termination under Article 29(e) of the Legislative Decree No. 728, which renders employee terminations based on pregnancy null.
In Labor Appeal No. 15216-2018, the plaintiff informed the defendant, who was her employer, that she was pregnant, at which time her employer granted her temporary leave. Then, she suffered a miscarriage and notified her employer. The defendant terminated the plaintiff not long after that, claiming she had not provided the requisite documentation about her pregnancy or miscarriage. On appeal, the defendant contended that the Superior Court erroneously interpreted and applied the law. The Supreme Court rejected the defendant’s arguments.
Law No. 27240 requires employers to provide working mothers a one-hour daily break for breastfeeding. The law states that an employee cannot exchange this benefit for another benefit or compensation and that the employer and employee can agree on the breastfeeding schedule. The law initially granted this right to working mothers until the child reached six months old. In 2001, Law No.
The objective of Law No. 27942 is to prevent and penalize sexual harassment that arises from relationships of authority or dependency. The statute applies to public and private workplaces, educational institutions, police and military institutions, and relationships that are unregulated by labor law. In 2009, Law No.
Law 28983 aims to provide a general framework for enacting national policies and legislation that protects women’s right to equality and dignity, and prohibits discrimination in all spheres of life. The law provides that the executive branch shall adopt policies, plans and programs directed at preventing and eliminating violence against women. (Article 6c).
The objective of Law No. 30364 is to prevent, eradicate, and penalize all forms of violence against women and family group members, especially those who are particularly vulnerable because of their age or physical attributes (e.g., children, adolescents, the elderly, and individuals with disabilities).
Law No. 30367 modifies Article 29 of Legislative Decree No. 728, nullifying all employment terminations motivated by pregnancy, childbirth, or lactation if the termination occurs during the pregnancy or within 90 days of the child’s birth. An employer is presumed to have terminated the employee based on the employee’s pregnancy if the employer has no justification for the employee’s termination and was notified of the pregnancy.
