Total abortion ban violates reproductive authority and constitutes systematic genderbased discrimination (1)

Facts

In October 2024, the Committee issued three landmark Views in Susana v. Nicaragua, Lucía v. Nicaragua, and Norma v. Ecuador, addressing adolescent pregnancy from sexual violence and the denial of access to abortion and related services.

In Susana and Lucía, the Committee determined that Nicaragua’s legislative framework imposing a total ban on abortion, ensuring a complete lack of access, inherently constituted genderbased discrimination under articles 3 (gender equality) and 26 (equality before the law and nondiscrimination) of the Covenant. This directly linked such bans to discrimination, a jurisprudential evolution from primarily framing similar harms under article  7 (cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment) or 17 (unlawful interference with privacy or family).

The Committee explicitly recognized that the violations in these cases amounted to intersectional discrimination, based on gender, age, and their socio-economic and rural background. These Views strongly underscore the State’s positive obligations to prevent violence, protect victims, provide adequate healthcare, and ensure effective investigations and remedies. This is reflected in the Committee’s extensive recommendations for systemic reforms, urging legislative amendments for abortion access, decisive actions against gender-specific violence, and specialized training for relevant personnel. Collectively, these decisions significantly advance the jurisprudence on reproductive rights, discrimination, and States’ duties to protect young women under the Covenant.

The author of the communication is a Nicaraguan national who was raised in extreme poverty by her maternal grandparents. The author was sexually abused by her grandfather from age six and got pregnant at the age of 13. The complaint for sexual violence with local authorities remained unanswered. Adolescent pregnancy (age 9-14) accounts for 5% of the yearly pregnancies in Nicaragua (2010-2015). Nicaragua has had an absolute ban on abortion since 2006, eliminating the previous exception for abortions of girls who were victims of sexual crimes. Additionally, despite governmental efforts, sexual violence remains largely unpunished, with only about 10% of reported aggressors facing criminal charges.

During maternity labour, hospital staff provided no prenatal care, testing, or mental health support, despite knowledge of her sexual abuse, and forced her to keep and breastfeed the baby. By 2018, the initial police complaint had been closed for “lack of interest,” and although it was reopened, no investigation occurred. The author suffered harsh stigma and fled her community. The forced pregnancy and motherhood harmed her physical, mental, and social well-being, curtailed her education, and limited her future prospects.

The author alleges that the State’s inaction in the criminal proceedings and the imposition of forced maternity violated her right to an effective remedy under article 2 (3), in conjunction with her rights to equality (article 3), life (article 6), freedom from cruel or inhuman treatment (article 7), liberty and security (article 9), privacy (article 17), information (article 19), special protection (article 24 (1)), and non-discrimination (article 26).

Admissibility

The Committee found that the author had exhausted domestic remedies for claims concerning abortion access and the lack of an effective investigation, rendering them admissible. It deemed article  9 (1) unsubstantiated and decided to address the claim of an autonomous violation of articles 3 and 26 together with the other substantive articles. Concluding that the remaining claims under articles 2 (3), 3, 6, 7, 17, 19, 24 (1), and 26 were sufficiently substantiated.

Merits

The Committee finds that the State party’s total criminalization of abortion and its failure to act upon clear indications of sexual violence violated multiple rights of the author. First, under article 6, read alone and in conjunction with articles 2 (3) and 24 (1), the Committee notes that forcing the author, a minor, to carry the pregnancy to term without protection or support posed a foreseeable risk to her life and well-being. Second, it concludes that prolonging the forced pregnancy, denying abortion access, and neglecting to investigate or punish the violence inflicted upon her amounted to cruel and inhuman treatment, contravening article 7, also read alone and with articles 2 (3) and 24 (1).

Additionally, the Committee determined that the absolute ban on abortion constituted an unreasonable and arbitrary interference with the author’s privacy, infringing article 17, read alone and in conjunction with articles 2 (3) and 24 (1). Furthermore, by withholding crucial information about reproductive health, including the availability of adoption or any other supportive measures, the State party breached the author’s right to access information under article  19. Finally, the Committee holds that the State’s persistent inaction and lack of effective legal or social remedies, coupled with the disproportionate burden placed on the author due to her gender and her status as a child, amounted to a form of discrimination in violation of articles 3 and 26. Consequently, it finds that these omissions and restrictive measures also contravened the State party’s overarching obligation to ensure an effective remedy under article 2 (3).

Recommendations

The State party should:

• (a) make full reparation to the author for the harm suffered, including through adequate compensation:
• (b) repair the damage to her life project, including support to enable her to access education in the form she considers most appropriate;
• (c) guarantee access to education at all levels for her child;
• (d) provide specialised psychological care for her and her child born of sexual violence until the author and the specialist deem it necessary;
• (e) carry out a public acknowledgement of responsibility; and (f) take measures to prevent similar violations, with the Committee requesting the State to:
• (g) review its legal framework and ensure that all women and girls victims of sexual violence, including all girls who are victims of sexual violence, such as incest or rape and/or in cases where there is a risk to their health, have access to the service of termination of pregnancy (h) take action to combat sexual violence in all sectors, including through education and public awareness, as well as in the area of the administration of justice;
• (i) health professionals and justice operators on comprehensive care in cases of sexual violence; and
• (i) develop appropriate adoption policies.

Implementation

Deadline for implementation: 30 April 2025

More information: 

— Centre for Reproductive Rights - UN Ruling: Ecuador and Nicaragua Must Legalize Abortion to End Violations of Girls’ Human Rights

— Ms. Magazine - U.N. Landmark Ruling Condemns Ecuador and Nicaragua for Forcing Girls Into Motherhood

— Planned Parenthood Press Statement - United Nations Human Rights Committee Issues Historic Ruling to Protect Girls from Forced Motherhood, Setting Global Precedent across 170+ Countries