CEDAW/C/50/D/22/2009
The Convention entered into force in Peru on 13 October 1982 and the Optional Protocol on
10 July 2001.
The facts as presented by the author
2.1
L.C. lives in Ventanilla District, Callao Province. When she was 11 years old, she
began to be sexually abused by J.C.R., a man about 34 years old. As a result, she became
pregnant at the age of 13 and, in a state of depression, attempted suicide on 31 March 2007
by jumping from a building. She was taken to Daniel Alcides Carrión public hospital,
where she was diagnosed with “vertebromedullar cervical trauma, cervical luxation and
complete medullar section”, with “a risk of permanent disability” and “risk of deterioration
of cutaneous integrity resulting from physical immobility”.
2.2
The damage to the spinal column, in addition to other medical problems, caused
paraplegia of the lower and upper limbs requiring emergency surgery. The head of the
Neurosurgery Department recommended surgery in order to prevent the injuries she
suffered from worsening and leaving her disabled. As a result, the intervention was
scheduled for 12 April 2007.
2.3
On 4 April the hospital performed a psychological evaluation of L.C., in the course
of which she revealed that the sexual abuse she had suffered and her fear of being pregnant
were the causes of her suicide attempt. The following day a gynaecological examination
was performed, confirming the pregnancy. The daily status reports on the health of L.C.
from 2 to 12 April 2007 recorded the risk both of developing infections and of failing to
avoid deterioration of her skin owing to the condition of total paralysis and deterioration of
her physical mobility.
2.4
On the scheduled day of the surgery, the author was informed that it had been
postponed and that the doctor wished to meet with her the following day, 13 April 2007. At
that meeting, the author was informed that the surgery had been postponed because of
L.C.’s pregnancy. The author also notes that L.C. was diagnosed with moderate anxietydepression syndrome, for which she was given no treatment as it was contraindicated
during pregnancy.
2.5
On 18 April 2007, the author, after consulting with her daughter, requested the
hospital officials to carry out a legal termination of the pregnancy in accordance with article
119 of the Penal Code. 2 In her request the author referred to the conversation she had on 13
April 2007 with the Head of the Neurosurgical Department in which he informed her that
he could not operate on L.C. due to her pregnancy. She alleged that the pregnancy seriously
and permanently endangered the life, physical and psychological health and personal
integrity of L.C. and that the spinal surgery could not be performed if the pregnancy
continued. 3
2.6
Given the excessive delay by the hospital authorities in responding to the request,
the author sought the assistance of the non-governmental organization Centro de Promoción
y Defensa de los Derechos Sexuales y Reproductivos (PROMOSEX, Centre for the
Promotion and Protection of Sexual and Reproductive Rights) which, on 15 May 2007,
brought the case to the attention of the office of the Deputy Defender for Women’s Rights
in the Public Defender’s Office. On 30 May 2007, 42 days after having submitted the
2
3
This provision states that “abortion shall not be punishable if performed by a doctor with the
consent of the pregnant woman or her legal representative, if any, when it is the only way to save
the life of the mother or to avoid serious and permanent harm to her health”.
A copy of the request is contained in the file.
3