including being tested for pregnancy.111 Furthermore, the provision of these services
must be confidential and conducted by trained healthcare professionals.112 The
disclosure of results should also be done only with the express consent of the child.113
In a note by the UN Secretary-General on the Right to Health, the implications of
compulsory testing on human rights were explained such that mandatory testing,
regardless of the opportunity to consent, is a clear violation of rights.114
94. It has been established that children were routinely forced to undergo pregnancy
testing in the absence of any legal requirement, with no prior information and without
any opportunity to refuse. On many occasions, these tests were conducted by
teachers or in a manner whereby children were not allowed to speak to the healthcare
professionals involved. Furthermore, the results of the pregnancy tests were disclosed
in a manner intended to publicly humiliate the girls who had fallen pregnant.
95. The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights held that the vaginal inspection of
a 13-year-old child every time she wanted to visit her family in prison subjects her to
serious psychological damage and results in shame and anguish and further decided
that the practice violates the right to privacy and dignity of the child. 115 Considering
how the practices of mandatory pregnancy testing violate an array of children’s rights,
it is clear that this interference is arbitrary in addition to being unlawful. The Committee
is of the view that the mandatory pregnancy testing of schoolgirls, the failure to
facilitate prior, informed consent, and the public announcement of their results is an
unlawful, and arbitrary infringement on their privacy.
96. With regards to the practice of the illegal detention of pregnant girls to extract
information from them, the Respondent alleges that it is not aware of the practice
occurring. However, the Respondent also argues that it is a necessary component of
due diligence to question pregnant girls to find and prosecute the person who
impregnated them. While the Committee takes note of the Respondent’s commitment
to exercising due diligence in the investigation of suspected crimes, it is concerning to
note that the reports of illegal detentions of pregnant girls within the Respondent State
have not been subjected to the same level of scrutiny. The Complainants have
demonstrated in their submissions that such detentions had been occurring on a
routine basis, and were being reported on regularly.116 Furthermore, Tanzania’s
Commission for Human Rights and Good Governance has also reported on the
occurrence of such illegal detentions within the Respondent State.117 The State is
under an obligation to investigate and act to prevent any such violation. 118 In light of
111 UNCRC, General Comment No. 4, para 29.
112 UNCRC, General Comment No. 4, para 36.
113 UNCRC, General Comment No. 4, para 7.
114 Note by UN Sec Gen on Right to Health, 2009: 27.
115 Ms. X v. Argentina, Case 10.506, Report No. 38/96, Inter-Am.C.H.R., OEA/Ser.L/V/II.95 Doc. 7 rev. at
50 (1997), para 93.
116 Complainant’s submissions on admissibility and merits, para 37.
117 Commission for Human Rights and Good Governance, ‘Inspection Report for Children in Detention
Facilities in Tanzania IX-XI’ (2011).
118 ACERWC, Communication No. 007/Com/003/2015, Minority Rights Group International and SOSEsclaves on behalf of Said Ould Salem and Yarg Ould Salem V. The Republic of Mauritania, para 52.
JN
35