CEDAW/C/50/D/22/2009 6.10 The Ministry of Health has models for comprehensive care for child abuse at the national level that offer care for children and families affected by violence, including sexual violence. If the family had sought help in a timely way, it would have been possible to provide treatment that would have, in some measure, helped to develop and reinforce the girl’s social skills and emotional competence as protective factors against sexual and other forms of abuse, and to diminish the negative effects of the violence experienced, and would have also permitted the therapeutic monitoring of suicidal thoughts. 6.11 The State party mentions various programmes developed by the Ministry of Health to combat gender violence. Finally, with respect to the alleged violation of general recommendation No. 24, the State party notes that it is not possible, as part of proceedings on individual communications, to rule on the direct violation or non-compliance with the general recommendations issued by the Committee. Author’s comments on the State party’s observations on the merits 7.1 In her comments of 15 April 2010, the author rejected the observations of the State party that appeared to place the responsibility on L.C. and her family for not having sought help that would have provided treatment for the sexual abuse she was subjected to. The author did not hold the State responsible for the sexual abuse nor for the injury to L.C. as a result of her suicide attempt. Furthermore, those comments also carried a risk of gender discrimination. 7.2 In the view of the author, expecting a girl to have overcome her emotional trauma and sought assistance is a double victimization. It is cruel to create in a minor the idea that she was guilty for acts that were totally beyond her control, such as being sexually abused and consequently suffering a mental imbalance that worsened when she learned that she was pregnant. It further reveals a discriminatory attitude that responds to the gender stereotype tending to blame women who have been victims of violence for its consequences. Reasons for the denial of the spinal surgery 7.3 The author recalls that L.C. was hospitalized on 31 March 2007. The following day she was given the diagnosis of “risk of permanent disability”, as well as risk of deterioration of her skin due to physical immobility. As a result, surgery was scheduled for 12 April 2007. On 5 April 2007 her pregnancy was discovered, as well as the danger of miscarriage. The daily reports on her condition, from 2 to 11 April 2007, constantly reported the existing risk both of developing infections and of compromising the integrity of her skin due to her total paralysis, as well as the deterioration in her physical mobility. 9 Up to 12 April, the date on which the operation should have taken place, the hospital did not report that L.C. was suffering from any type of infection, nor any other circumstance that would have prevented it. Also, on 12 April the author was informed that the operation was postponed and the following day she was informed that the reason was the pregnancy. In the condition report of 12 April it was clearly stated that the only reason for the postponement was prevention of harm to the foetus. Over the following five days the reports on her condition noted that there was no longer just a risk, but a deterioration in her cutaneous integrity and mobility, as well as her anxiety state. On the days following 18 April 2007, the date on which the author had requested the termination of pregnancy, the 9 10 Copies of these reports are on file. The report of 11 April 2007 indicates a “deterioration of the cutaneous integrity” whereas the one of 12 April 2007 indicates an “alteration of the cutaneous integrity”.