April 3, 2025
On March 31, 2025, members of the O’Neill Institute’s Center for Health and Human Rights (CHHR) and the organization Ríos filed an amicus curiae brief in case No. 41-22-IN (currently under review by the Constitutional Court of Ecuador), challenging the constitutionality of provisions of the Organic Law Regulating the Voluntary Interruption of Pregnancy for Girls, Adolescents, and Women in Cases of Rape.
CHHR and Ríos’ submission seeks to highlight the ways in which imposing a restrictive gestational limit to legally interrupt a pregnancy and other burdensome legal and administrative requirements creates barriers to access and violates the rights of women and girls in cases of rape. These include violations of the rights to health, to be free from violence, to autonomy and free development of personality, and to equality and non-discrimination. The submission also highlights the situations of extreme vulnerability experienced by many victims of sexual violence in Ecuador and how this vulnerability can intensify the negative impacts created by the law.
CHHR and Ríos also addressed the barriers created by the conscientious objection provisions in the law, including permissive language on institutional conscientious objection and the absence of safeguards provided by the law to ensure that abortion services are provided in a timely manner and without delay. Similarly, the submission addresses the impacts of the law’s provisions on mandatory reporting and the ways in which this violates principles of doctor-patient confidentiality and professional secrecy, international human rights principles and obligations, and the standards established by the Inter-American Court in the Manuela vs. El Salvador case.
CHHR and Ríos also presented the serious issues raised by the Organic Law regarding the recognition of informed consent for girls and adolescents, as it ignores their progressive autonomy. They also presented the impacts of the Organic Law on women and girls with disabilities, as it allows the substitution of their informed consent in conflict with the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.
These cases present an excellent opportunity for the Constitutional Court to address highly problematic aspects of the Organic Law, such as the strict limitation on gestational age and burdensome additional requirements for access, the broadly permissive rules on conscientious objection without clear safeguards, the confusing clauses on professional secrecy, and the limitations on the autonomy and informed consent of girls, adolescents, and people with disabilities.