“They Are Girls, Not Mothers” Cases

This is a set of four cases brought in a strategic group before the Human Rights Committee, which oversees the implementation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

The four cases relate to girls who were made pregnant through rape and who were denied access to abortion, and to effective investigation and prosecution, which caused them severe pain and suffering.

All the names are pseudonyms, to protect the identity of those bringing the cases.

Lucia in Lucia v Nicaragua, was raped by a local Catholic priest.

CCPR/C/142/D/3627/2019, 31 October 2024

Susana in Susana v Nicaragua, was raped from the age of 6 by her grandfather, who was a member of an armed group.

CCPR/C/142/D/3626/2019, 4 June 2025

Norma in Norma v Ecuador, was raped by her father.

CCPR/C/142/D/3628/2019, 20 June 2025

Fatima, in Fatima v Guatemala, was raped by the former director of a school she attended, who raped many other girls in his school’s community.

CCPR/C/143/D/3629/2019, 11 July 2025

All four became pregnant in their early teens after being sexually abused for months, as well as being subjected other forms of violence and threats of further violence. Common to all four cases is that they became pregnant through rape, and were unwilling to have a child: that the continuing pregnancies as much as the rapes they experienced caused them severe pain and suffering, amounting to torture, a violation of Article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

The context presented in Lucia’s case against Nicaragua showed how prevalent child and adolescent pregnancies are in the region:

“The State Party has the highest proportion in Latin America of births among girls aged 18 years or below (28.1 per cent).Between 2000 and 2010, the pregnancy rate among girls aged between 10 and 14 years increased by 47 per cent. Between 2010 and 2015, an average of 1,500 girls between the ages of 9 and 14 years became pregnant each year, representing 5 per cent of all births.” (paragraph 2.1, Lucia v Nicaragua)

Lucia identified the rapes per se as acts of torture, because the perpetrator used his position in society to victimize her:

“The author alleges that the sexual violence constituted torture because:

(a) it was intentional, with the assailant – a priest – sexually assaulting her from the age of 13 years, when she was helpless and dominated by a man who took advantage of her young age and of his investiture, which allowed him to remain in a position of power;

(b) the sexual violence caused her severe physical and mental suffering, considering the perpetrator’s position, the power dynamics because of the religious aspect and the profound effects of sexual violence, including significant physical and mental harm; and

(c) it was committed with the purpose of sexually abusing her, intimidating her, destroying her personality and subjugating her, and involved gender subordination and a relationship based on power and patriarchal dominance over the victim, a defenceless girl.

All of this is evidence of a discriminatory motive.” (Lucia, 3.14)

In her case against Guatemala, Fatima claimed that her particular situation as a child victim of rape exacerbated her experience of severe and pain and suffering, including the failure to prosecute the perpetrator. She said: (paragraph 3.11)

“That the State Party violated her right not to be subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment, such as that caused, in the first place, by the unpunished sexual violence that led to her severe suffering, resulting in suicide attempts. She recalls that, in the case of child victims, the impact “can be exacerbated and they may suffer an emotional trauma that differs from that suffered by an adult with extremely profound effects, in particular when the victim’s relationship with the perpetrator is based on trust and authority”. She also recalls that article 7 is violated when the authorities fail to investigate effectively, thus depriving victims of their right to reparation, and that when the victim is a minor, the obligation of due diligence is enhanced.”

Common factors in all four cases was that abortion was either criminalised in all circumstances (Nicaragua) or abortion was criminalised in almost all circumstances, abortion might have been possible in cases of rape or severe risk of health of the mother – including pregnancies of girls under 15, which are acknowledged as all being high-risk – but that there was no efficient legal route to securing an abortion in a timely manner. Indeed, in some of the cases, the girls asked for access to abortion but were told that it was not possible, even when the law allowed it because of their young age. Either way, they were forced to become mothers, against their will. This imposition of an impossible situation – being forced to carry and give birth to the child of their rapist – was identified by the Human Rights Committee as a breach of Article 7, due to the pain and suffering caused to them. Norma and Fatima also had severe depression because of the pregnancy, and Fatima tried to kill herself – the Human Rights Committee found that the mental health impacts of the injustice they faced was also a breach of Article 7, the right not to be subjected to torture and ill-treatment, and a breach of Article 6, the right to a dignified life (Norma paragraph 3.13, Fatima paragraphs 3.7, 3.8 and 3.11).

The forced motherhood of these girls was also recognised as a denial of their right to a dignified life. In Fatima’s case, (paragraph 3.8, 3.12) this was because of the risk to her life posed by being pregnant at such a young age – it is recognized by professional medical organisations internationally that adolescent girls are not sufficiently well developed to carry a pregnancy and give birth safely. For the same reason, forced motherhood for girls under 15 was recognized as per se, a risk to adolescent girls’ right to health.

In Fatima’s case, the Human Rights Committee used their analysis in General Comment 36 on the right to life to emphasise the importance of sexual and reproductive autonomy, especially when life or health is at risk:

“The Committee recalls that the right to life cannot be properly understood if it is interpreted in a restrictive manner; the protection of this right requires that States adopt positive measures. In this connection, the Committee notes that violations through acts of omission include the failure to take appropriate steps towards the full realization of everyone’s right to sexual and reproductive health and the failure to enact and enforce relevant laws. The Committee recalls that States Parties must provide safe, legal and effective access to abortion where the life and health of the pregnant woman or girl is at risk, or where carrying a pregnancy to term would cause the pregnant woman or girl substantial pain or suffering, most notably where the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest, and should remove existing barriers to effective access by women and girls to safe and legal abortion. The Committee also notes the view of the Committee on the Rights of the Child that consideration should be given to the particularly significant risk that pregnancy poses to the lives of girls because of possible complications during pregnancy and childbirth. That Committee has also recognized that pregnancy and childbirth at the age of 14 carry a risk of maternal mortality. The Committee recalls that it has already found a violation of article 6 of the Covenant in similar cases involving adolescent mothers.” Fatima’s case Paragraph 15.5

In all four cases, the perpetrators escaped with impunity, due to a lack of effective action on the part of the authorities to investigate and prosecute the perpetrators. In Lucia’s case, (paragraph 2.14) the police admitted that they had been told by their senior officers not to investigate the priest because of his position in the community. In Susana’s case, her grandmother travelled for days to various police stations from her isolated rural home, but was told by all of them to go elsewhere, or they admitted that it was too dangerous to challenge the perpetrator, Lucia’s grandfather, because of his position in an armed group. In all four cases, the Human Rights Committee found that there was an “enhanced duty of due diligence” (Fatima’s case, paragraph 3.11, Susana paragraph 8.8) to investigate and prosecute these cases, and the persistent impunity of the perpetrators was an aggravating factor, making the cases even more serious.

Another common factor in all four cases was the stereotyping, victimisation, stigma and disrespect shown to the four girls by police, medical professionals, and their communities, because they were assumed to have chosen to become sexually active at a young age. Fatima and Norma were told aggressively by medical staff to submit to physically painful and invasive treatment during labour, that they had no right to complain because they “didn’t keep their legs shut before” (Fatima, paragraph 3.13, Norma paragraph 2.8) A police officer asked Norma if she enjoyed the rapes she had been subjected to (paragraph 2.13). Fatima was particularly stigmatised by her school authorities:

“More than nine years after the events, the social stigma has also remained. At the time of the events, some of the teachers at her school blamed her for what had happened, and she was stigmatized as a girl who had become sexually active at an early age. In particular, even though she ranked first in academic performance at the school, she was not allowed to carry the flag in the holiday parade, as she should have done, because the school wished to protect its reputation by not making it obvious that one of its students was pregnant. In January 2011, four months after the delivery, when the author sought to return to public school, she was told that, in order to do so, she had to get married. The organization Tierra Nueva had to intervene and, although the author was able to re-enrol without marrying, she was stigmatized. For instance, the vocational counsellor would tell her that she had “asked for” what had happened to her. “ Fatima’s case, paragraph 2.40

In Norma’s case, the Human Rights Committee was invited to consider another angle to this situation,

“The author also alleges that being forced into motherhood through incest seriously affected her physical, mental and social integrity. She claims that there was also a violation of article 9, recalling that the concept of security of person concerns freedom from injury to the body and the mind, or bodily and mental integrity, and applies to all persons whether or not they are deprived of liberty. (Norma’s case paragraph 3.16)

The four cases are particularly important because they emphasise the girls’ right to freedom of information and privacy, particularly, access to comprehensive sexual and reproductive rights education (Norma paragraph 2.2, Lucia paragraph 3.20) – Norma had so little education that she didn’t even realise that she was pregnant. She:

“Alleges a violation of article 19 of the Covenant because she did not receive:

(a) education on sexual and reproductive health, which would have been crucial in enabling her to identify sexual violence and realize earlier that she was pregnant.

(b) information on pregnancy and childbirth.

(d) accurate information about adoption; or

(e) information about the contraceptive implant that was fitted without her consent.” (Norma, 3.18)

Susana argued that forcing her to bear a child was an imposition which undermined her privacy:

“The author also maintains that the lack of access to abortion represented arbitrary interference in her private life. The decision to terminate a pregnancy is a decision related to reproductive autonomy, which is a component of the right to privacy. The author did not have access to the health system until her labour began. In any case, she would not have been able to terminate her pregnancy because of the full criminalization of abortion in the State Party. Despite the fact that the author stated that she did not want to take care of the child, she was ignored by health practitioners, who denied her relevant information about options such as adoption, which went against her best interests as a child and violated her autonomy and privacy, as well as her right to be informed and to express her opinion, on the basis of the best interests of the child.” (Susana’s case, paragraph 3.20)

The four cases fluently use the language of intersectionality – that the girls were marginalised and targeted for violations of their human rights because of their gender and age, and also family poverty (Fatima, paragraph 2.40) and illiteracy (Susana, paragraph 2.11)

The Human Rights Committee required the respondent states to provide comprehensive reparation –

Restitution.
rehabilitation, including support to restart their “life-plan” which had been suspended when they became pregnant.
satisfaction, including public apologies.
Compensation.
and guarantees of non-repetition.

Finally, there was an inclusive commitment to understanding gender-based violence in all its forms, in its conclusions on Lucia’s case:

“The Committee notes that the total lack of access to abortion in itself constitutes differential treatment based on the sex of the author, on the basis of a gender stereotype related to the reproductive role of women, primarily as mothers. By being stereotyped as a reproductive tool, she was subjected to discrimination. The Committee also notes that the lack of protection from sexual violence, the forced pregnancy, forced motherhood and the lack of access to women’s health services are forms of gender-based violence against women and gender discrimination. The Committee therefore considers that the facts of the present communication also disclose a form of intersectional discrimination based on the author’s gender and age.” (Lucia’s case paragraph 8.19)

Conclusion

These four cases illustrate the principle that “All human rights are universal, indivisible and interdependent and interrelated” which was adopted on 25 June 1993 by the World Conference on Human Rights in Vienna, not least because the cases indicate how gender and age discrimination facilitate the infliction of violence. Similarly, the adolescent girls brought these cases to show the impact of violence, the way they were marginalised and stereotyped as “girls with no morals” and how this made their struggle for justice and reparation for themselves and other girls in their situation even harder. The cases show the indivisibility of rights, that the intimate harm done by sexual and reproductive violence are not just violations of health, but violations of privacy and decision-making; and that their right to life means the ability to take up their lives again, with all their plans and wishes for the future.

For further insight, see the Committee on the Rights of the Child case of Camila v Peru, CRC/C/93/D/136/2021 (13 June 2023) which had slightly different facts – Camila was raped and became pregnant, as in these four cases, but she experienced an obstetric emergency and miscarried. However, the state redoubled the violence committed against her, not only by failing to investigate and prosecute the perpetrator of the rape but also investigating and prosecuting her for allegedly seeking to abort the pregnancy and causing her miscarriage.