CEDAW/C/50/D/22/2009 demonstrated based on judicial precedent, as evident from the information provided by the parties. 11 The Committee considers that no appropriate legal procedure was available to the victim that would have allowed her access to a preventive, independent and enforceable decision. Consequently, the Committee concludes that the exception to the exhaustion of domestic remedies provided in article 4, paragraph 1, of the Optional Protocol, regarding the improbability that amparo would offer effective relief to the victim, is applicable in this case. In a similar manner, the Committee considers that civil action for compensation for damages and harm is also not a recourse that would offer the author an effective remedy, since in no case would it have been able to prevent or redress the irreparable harm to the health of L.C. 8.5 There being no other obstacles to admissibility, the Committee finds the communication admissible and shall proceed to consider it on the merits. Consideration on the merits 8.6 The Committee has considered the present communication in the light of all the information made available by the parties, in accordance with article 7, paragraph 1, of the Optional Protocol. 8.7 The Committee recalls that L.C. became pregnant at the age of 13 years as a result of repeated sexual abuse and thereafter attempted suicide in the State party, where abortion on the grounds of rape or sexual abuse is not legally available. The Committee must decide if the refusal by the hospital to perform a therapeutic abortion on L.C. as provided under article 119 of the Penal Code, and the delayed scheduling of her operation on the spine gave rise to a violation of her rights under the Convention. The author invokes in particular articles 1, 2 (c) and (f), 3, 5, 12 and 16, paragraph 1 (e), of the Convention. 8.8 The Committee takes note of the State party’s observation that the reason for the delay in the spinal surgery was not the pregnancy, but the existence of an infection in the area where the surgical incision should be made, as can be seen from the evaluation reports issued by the three meetings of the medical board, the first of which was held on 24 April 2007. However, the Committee also notes the author’s assertion that the operation was initially scheduled for 12 April 2007, that the following day she was informed that the reason for the postponement was prevention of harm to the foetus and that the presence of an infection was noted for the first time only on 23 April 2007. The Committee considers that the State party has not disproved the author’s allegations, therefore it starts from the assumption that there is a direct relationship between the withdrawal of the surgery, whose necessity cannot be questioned, and L.C.’s pregnancy. 8.9 The Committee will consider whether the facts, as established, constitute a violation of the rights of L.C. under articles 1, 2 (c) and (f), 3, 5, 12 and 16, paragraph 1 (e), of the Convention. 8.10 The author alleges that the facts constitute a violation of article 12 because the continuation of the pregnancy represented a threat to the physical and mental health of L.C. She also alleges a violation of article 5 because timely access to necessary medical treatment was made conditional on carrying to term an unwanted pregnancy, which fulfils the stereotype of placing L.C.’s reproductive function above her right to health, life and a life of dignity. Article 16, paragraph 1 (e), was also allegedly violated because she was deprived of her right to decide on the desired number of children. 11 See paragraph 5.3 above. 15