L.M.R., a young Argentinean woman with an intellectual disability, became pregnant as a result of rape and, with her mother, requested access to abortion services. The hospital staff refused to perform the procedure and advised that a complaint would need to be filed with the police based on Section 86.2 of the Argentinean Criminal Code, which provides that an abortion performed by a medical practitioner is not illegal if the pregnancy results from the rape of a woman with a mental impairment. A complaint was filed with the police against L.M.R.’s uncle for the rape, and L.M.R.’s abortion was scheduled. After being admitted to a hospital and preparing to undergo abortion surgery, the hospital received an injunction, wherein a Civil Court judge ruled that any abortion should be prohibited. L.M.R. appealed unsuccessfully to the Civil Court. Though the Supreme Court of Buenos Aires overturned the Civil Court decision, the hospital refused to perform the abortion on the grounds that the pregnancy was too advanced. As a result, L.M.R. sought and underwent a clandestine abortion.
The Committee found Argentina violated Articles 3 (right to equality), 7 (right to freedom from torture, or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment) and 17 (right to privacy) of the ICCPR.
In addition, the Committee recognized that the failure to guarantee L.M.R.’s right to a legal abortion, as provided for under the Criminal Code, caused L.M.R. physical and mental suffering in violation of her right to be free from torture, or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment under Article 7. The Committee recognized that the physical and mental suffering L.M.R. was forced to endure was further aggravated by her status as a young woman with a disability, and confirmed that the treatment covered by Article 7 extends to acts that cause mental suffering.
In addition, the Committee concluded that L.M.R.’s right to privacy under Article 17 was violated by Argentina due to unlawful judicial interference by the Civil Court in a matter that should have been between L.M.R., her legal guardian, and physicians.
The Committee further recognized L.M.R.’s inadequate access to an effective remedy, in violation of Article 2 of the ICCPR. The Committee noted that although the Supreme Court decision to overturn the injunction was ultimately resolved in her favor, L.M.R. had to appear before three different courts, prolonging the pregnancy, with consequences that contributed to her ultimately having an illegal and unsafe abortion.
The Committee highlighted the state’s obligation under Article 2(3)(a) of the Optional Protocol to provide compensation as an appropriate avenue of redress, and its obligation to take steps to prevent similar violations in the future.