justice in
several cases
that we

ur work towards accessing justice continued with the monitoring and litigation of more than 70 cases during 2021.

In some of these cases, there were significant advances in the comprehensive reparation processes and in terms of legal precedent to prevent similar cases from being repeated. Among these, the following stand out:



Due to the health problems that her daughter presented just days after birth, Monica requested a special maternity leave, but was denied and she lost her job. She filed a complaint of human rights violations before the Mexico City Human Rights Commission (CDHCM, in Spanish) which, for the first time, issued a recommendation on issues of motherhood and work that recognizes the institutional violence that Monica experienced, as well as the impediment to fully enjoying motherhood. After a long process, in April 2021 she was notified that she had won her job back.


Valeria and Ian

In 2019, they were denied an abortion and were accompanied by GIRE to access comprehensive reparations for the violations of their human rights. On December 2, 2021, Valeria and Ian received a public apology from the Comprehensive Hospital for Women in the state of Sonora, which was the first apology ever issued by that institution. The comprehensive reparation measures that were achieved for Valeria and Ian included psychological care.



She was 16 years old when she was diagnosed with a four-month pregnancy, the product of rape. Due to the number of gestation weeks, the authorities denied her an abortion. In 2019, the Collegiate Court ruled that Nadia’s human rights had been violated and ordered a series of comprehensive reparation measures, which were complied with during 2021.



She was 13 years old in 2016 when she was sexually assaulted. As a result of the assault, she became pregnant. Together with her mother, she reported the crime and requested access to abortion in the state of Durango. They took her statement, but never made her aware of her right to a legal abortion. She sought comprehensive reparation and, among other things, in 2021 was paid compensation measures by the health services that also complied with the satisfaction measures by delivering a public apology.


After several days in labor, public health personnel in the state of Jalisco tricked, threatened and conditioned medical care in order to obtain Sonia’s consent to perform a bilateral tubal occlusion as a permanent contraceptive method. After more than three years, on May 26, 2021, the Supreme Court resolved her case, determining that the consent obtained by the health personnel was not prior, free, full or informed. The Court also concluded that Sonia was a victim of non-consensual sterilization, gender violence, obstetric violence, and cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment.



On July 7, 2021, the Supreme Court reviewed Jessica’s, a woman with disabilities, case —who was a minor at the time of the events— who was denied access to an abortion due to rape, on the grounds that her pregnancy exceeded the gestational limit established by the Chiapas State Penal Code. The Court ruled that limiting abortion for rape victims is discriminatory, especially for those living with a disability. The sentence in this case sets a legal precedent for similar cases that may arise in the future. In addition, it could encourage the six states in the country that limit access to this service to modify their criminal codes, harmonizing them with the federal regulatory framework.



In response to a worrying pattern of abortion criminalization in the state of Aguascalientes, in September we launched a report to contribute to the legal efforts carried out by a group of local organizations. In one of the accompanied cases, we managed to close the criminal process against a woman named Pilar.

Pilar entered the Women’s Hospital in Aguascalientes to receive medical care for an incomplete abortion. The hospital immediately notified the State Attorney General’s Office. With the accompaniment of GIRE, Pilar filed a legal stay claim that no one informed her that an investigation had been opened against her and that she was detained for the crime of abortion, questioning article 101 of the Penal Code of the condition. Based on the Supreme Court’s recent ruling, a Judge granted the protection to Pilar, making it clear that it is unconstitutional to detain a woman for the crime of abortion, and that the protection of prenatal life cannot ignore the right of women and pregnant indivudals to reproductive freedom. Likewise, she ordered that the public ministry refrain from investigating the crime of abortion and annul the evidence collected.