CEDAW/C/50/D/22/2009 therapeutic abortion. This is even more serious considering that she was a minor and a victim of sexual abuse. The suicide attempt is a demonstration of the amount of mental suffering she had experienced as a result of the abuse. The Committee therefore considers that the facts as described constitute a violation of the rights of L.C. under article 12 of the Convention. The Committee also considers that the facts reveal a violation of article 5 of the Convention, as the decision to postpone the surgery due to the pregnancy was influenced by the stereotype that protection of the foetus should prevail over the health of the mother. Having reached this conclusion, the Committee does not consider it necessary to rule on the possible violation of article 16, paragraph 1 (e), of the Convention. 8.16 With regard to the allegations concerning the possible violation of articles 2 (c) and (f), the Committee recalls its jurisprudence, under which, although it recognizes that the Convention does not expressly refer to the right to a remedy, it considers that this right is implicit, in particular in article 2 (c), whereby States parties undertake to “establish legal protection of the rights of women on an equal basis with men and to ensure through competent national tribunals and other public institutions the effective protection of women against any act of discrimination”. 12 Furthermore, under article 2 (f), and in conjunction with article 3, the State party is obliged to take all appropriate measures, including legislation, to modify or abolish existing laws which constitute discrimination against women. The Committee observes that the hospital medical board delayed taking a decision on the request for an abortion submitted by the author for 42 days and the hospital director waited 20 days longer to respond to the request for reconsideration. Furthermore, as indicated earlier, the remedy of amparo did not constitute an effective legal remedy to protect the author’s right to appropriate medical care. The Committee also notes the author’s allegations concerning the absence of laws and regulations in the State party governing access to therapeutic abortion, resulting in a situation where each hospital determines arbitrarily, inter alia, what requirements are necessary, the procedure to be followed, the time frame for a decision and the importance to be placed on the views of the mother. These allegations have not been disproved by the State party. 8.17 The Committee considers that, since the State party has legalized therapeutic abortion, it must establish an appropriate legal framework that allows women to exercise their right to it under conditions that guarantee the necessary legal security, both for those who have recourse to abortion and for the health professionals who must perform it. It is essential for this legal framework to include a mechanism for rapid decision-making, with a view to limiting to the extent possible risks to the health of the pregnant mother, that her opinion be taken into account, that the decision be well-founded and that there be a right to appeal. 13 In the present case the Committee considers that L.C. could not benefit from a procedure for requesting a therapeutic abortion that met these criteria. In the light of the information contained in the file, the Committee believes, in particular, that the delay by the hospital authorities in deciding on the request had detrimental effects on her physical and mental health. Consequently, the Committee considers that an effective remedy was not available to L.C. and that the facts described give rise to a violation of article 2 (c) and (f) of the Convention. 8.18 The Committee notes that the failure of the State party to protect women’s reproductive rights and establish legislation to recognize abortion on the grounds of sexual abuse and rape are facts that contributed to L.C.’s situation. The Committee also notes that the State party bears responsibility for the failure to recognize the risk of permanent disability for L.C., coupled with her pregnancy, as a serious physical and mental health risk, 12 13 See communication No. 18/2008, Vertido v. Philippines, Views adopted on 16 July 2010, para. 8.3. Along those lines, see the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the case Tysiac v. Poland, paras. 116-118. 17