Communication
3627/2019
Submission: 2019.05.29
View Adopted: 2024.10.31
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, a Nicaraguan citizen, was 13 years old when she was repeatedly raped by a Catholic priest from her parish. The abuse began in early 2013 when the priest manipulated and coerced her into private meetings, escalating to multiple instances of rape over more than a year. He also forced her to take emergency contraception, which she later could not afford. In 2014, after experiencing symptoms of illness, she was diagnosed as 14 weeks pregnant. Despite her distress and desire to continue her education, Nicaragua’s total abortion ban, without exceptions for victims of sexual violence or risk for the health of the mother, meant she was forced to carry the pregnancy to term.
Throughout her pregnancy, she received inadequate medical and psychological support. Healthcare providers failed to follow protocols for detecting and reporting sexual violence, did not refer her case to authorities, and pressured her into accepting motherhood. She endured social stigma, bullying at school, and harassment from the priest’s acquaintances. The doctors disregarded an initially recommended cesarean section, leading to complications during delivery, including a bladder tear that resulted in chronic health issues. Additionally, her family filed a rape complaint in October 2014, the investigation was delayed by six months, and the authorities did not carry out the arrest warrant even after a DNA test confirmed the priest’s paternity. A brief follow-up by officials in 2018 led to no further action, leaving the author without any meaningful State support or remedy.
The author alleges that the State’s inaction and forced continuation of her pregnancy violated her right to an effective remedy under article 2 (3), in conjunction with the rights to life (article 6), freedom from cruel or inhuman treatment (article 7), liberty and security (article 9), privacy (article 17), information (article 19), the special protection due to minors (article 24 (1)), and equality and non-discrimination (articles 3 and 26).
The Committee determined that the communication was admissible. Regarding the exhaustion of domestic remedies, the Committee noted that Nicaragua’s total prohibition on abortion meant no effective remedy was available to the author to seek a termination of pregnancy. Furthermore, the authorities had failed to act effectively on the criminal complaint concerning the sexual violence since it was lodged in 2014. The State party did not identify any effective and available remedies that the author could have pursued. The author’s allegation of a separate violation under article 9 (1) was deemed unsubstantiated. Claims under articles 3 and 26 were considered by the Committee to be closely linked to other substantive claims and were therefore examined in conjunction with them. The remaining allegations were found to be sufficiently substantiated for examination on the merits.
The Committee found a violation of article 6 (1) of the Covenant, read alone and in conjunction with articles 2 (3), and 24 (1). It observed that the State party’s failure to guarantee access to sexual and reproductive health services, including abortion, exposed Lucía, a minor, to a reasonably foreseeable risk of maternal mortality and morbidity inherent in pregnancy and childbirth at her young age. Her right to a life with dignity was also impaired because, by denying her access to abortion or information about her options (including adoption), the State party imposed forced motherhood without providing necessary protective measures or subsequent support for her profoundly affected life project, particularly given her status as a child. The Committee underscored that the right to life necessitates positive State measures, including ensuring full access to sexual and reproductive health. It reiterated its jurisprudence on the obligation of States to provide safe, legal, and effective access to abortion, especially when the pregnancy results from rape or incest or endangers the life or health of the pregnant woman or girl. The decade-long delay in the criminal investigation and the failure to execute the arrest warrant for the identified aggressor, despite knowledge of ongoing pressures on the author and her family, demonstrated a severe omission in the State party’s reinforced duty to protect a child victim of violence. These failings were incompatible with the author’s right to life, including a life with dignityThe Committee found a violation of article 6 (1) of the Covenant, read alone and in conjunction with articles 2 (3), and 24 (1). It observed that the State party’s failure to guarantee access to sexual and reproductive health services, including abortion, exposed Lucía, a minor, to a reasonably foreseeable risk of maternal mortality and morbidity inherent in pregnancy and childbirth at her young age. Her right to a life with dignity was also impaired because, by denying her access to abortion or information about her options (including adoption), the State party imposed forced motherhood without providing necessary protective measures or subsequent support for her profoundly affected life project, particularly given her status as a child. The Committee underscored that the right to life necessitates positive State measures, including ensuring full access to sexual and reproductive health. It reiterated its jurisprudence on the obligation of States to provide safe, legal, and effective access to abortion, especially when the pregnancy results from rape or incest or endangers the life or health of the pregnant woman or girl. The decade-long delay in the criminal investigation and the failure to execute the arrest warrant for the identified aggressor, despite knowledge of ongoing pressures on the author and her family, demonstrated a severe omission in the State party’s reinforced duty to protect a child victim of violence. These failings were incompatible with the author’s right to life, including a life with dignity
With respect to article 7 of the Covenant, read alone and in conjunction with articles 2 (3), and 24 (1), the Committee determined that the author endured severe physical and mental suffering amounting to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment. This suffering stemmed from the State’s failure to prevent the sexual violence, the subsequent impunity for the perpetrator, the imposition of forced pregnancy and motherhood due to the absolute prohibition of abortion, the lack of an effective investigation into the rape, her revictimization, and the inadequate comprehensive care adapted to her status as a minor. The characteristics of the aggressor (a priest wielding authority) exacerbated the trauma. The Committee recalled that article 7 encompasses moral suffering, particularly critical for minors, and that denial of abortion access when a woman’s physical or mental health is at risk, especially for a child victim of sexual abuse by a person in authority, can violate this provision. The insufficient psychological support, focused merely on “acceptance of motherhood,” and the prolonged failure to arrest the perpetrator despite a warrant and knowledge of his whereabouts, further constituted an aggravating factor. The Committee considered that impunity appeared linked to the priest’s societal role.
The Committee also found a violation of article 17 of the Covenant, read alone and in conjunction with articles 2 (3) and 24 (1). It reaffirmed that a woman’s decision regarding the termination of pregnancy falls within the ambit of private life protected by article 17. The State party’s absolute criminalization of abortion, denying Lucía any capacity to decide about her reproductive autonomy, constituted an unreasonable and therefore arbitrary interference with her right to privacy, especially considering her age and her status as a victim of sexual violence.
Furthermore, a violation of article 19 of the Covenant, read alone and in conjunction with articles 2 (3) and 24 (1), was established. The author was denied necessary sexual and reproductive health education and, crucially, was not provided with truthful information about options such as adoption, despite her circumstances. This lack of information hindered her ability to make informed decisions about her sexual and reproductive health and directly contributed to her forced motherhood.
Finally, the Committee considered the author’s claims under articles 3 and 26 of the Covenant, read in conjunction with articles 2 (3) and 24 (1). The lack of institutional response and the derogatory and stereotyped comments from authorities indicated discriminatory treatment questioning her morality. The total ban on abortion itself constituted sex-based differential treatment, reflecting gender-based stereotyping of women’s reproductive roles. The failure to protect against sexual violence, the imposition of forced pregnancy and motherhood, and the lack of access to womenspecific health services were forms of gender-based violence and discrimination. The Committee thus found a form of intersectional discrimination based on gender and age.
Given these extensive and interconnected violations, and considering the absolute prohibition of abortion and the systemic failures in the investigation, the Committee concluded that the State party had also breached its overarching obligation to ensure an effective remedy under article 2 (3) of the Covenant, read in conjunction with articles 3, 6, 7, 17, 24 (1), and 26.
The State party should:
Deadline for implementation: 31 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
