South America

A company fired an employee on the basis of notorious misconduct. The employee had been accused of having committed acts of workplace violence against a female coworker. The court highlighted the need to strike a balance between protecting victims of violence and protecting employees. In reconciling this tension, the court noted that the rules of evidence established in article 46 of law 19,580 and law 18,561 on sexual harassment call for the employer to have the burden of proving that there was notorious misconduct.

Defendant was charged with repeatedly raping his two underage daughters. The victims alleged that they did not report the incidents immediately because their father threatened them against doing so. Witnesses testified that the defendant was regularly drunk and abusive. The trial court found him guilty of rape. The appellate and supreme courts affirmed the conviction.

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.

VDA, on behalf of her daughter LMR, filed a petition alleging violations of LMR’s rights under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).

A 15-year-old girl, P, was allegedly sexually assaulted by three men. She immediately reported the attack to the police, but was kept waiting for hours at the police station and a medical center before being performed anal and vaginal palpations which caused her intense pain and despite complaining the sole anal nature of the attack. A social worker was sent to interview P's neighbors and relatives about her sexual history and morals during the investigation, leasing aside the three accused.

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.

The case concerned labor rights and protection of sex workers. The plaintiff, a sex worker, sued her former employer for firing her after she became pregnant. Under articles 236 and 239 of the Colombian Labor Code, a pregnant woman is subject to special labor protection, and therefore cannot be fired without cause and without authorities’ permission. The court consisdered whether pregnant sex workers should have the same labor protection as other professions.