commit against female students. 16 They argue that by the conduct of its agents –the assistant principal and school doctor-, Ecuador violated its obligation with regard to the care of Paola del Rosario. They contend that this violation was compounded by the fact that Paola was a child and therefore in need of special protection; thus, by the action of its agents, Ecuador also failed to comply with its international human rights obligations and the rights of the child, protected under Article 19 of the American Convention. They maintain that the Committee on the Rights of the Child has voiced concern over the links between sexual abuse and the suicide rate among adolescents. It has established that States have an obligation to protect adolescents from any form of violence and abuse, including sexual abuse by the teaching staff at schools. 21. The petitioners also point out that the Ecuadorian State has failed to take the necessary legal measures to ensure that children are protected from acts of sexual violence in the public schools. They argue further that the deficient response by the various jurisdictions in this specific case has resulted in the inadequacy of Ecuador’s laws to prevent violence against women.17 They allege that the State failed to act with the due diligence necessary to prevent, investigate, punish and redress the facts, in violation of Article 7 of the Convention of Belém do Pará. In reference to articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention, the petitioners also allege that this case involves mainly two types of violations: those related to an inadequate legal interpretation of what constitutes sexual offenses, and those related to the domestic proceedings’ delay and inefficiency in the investigation, sanction and redress of the alleged violations. The petitioners note that according to a study done in Ecuador, 22% of school-age girls report having been the victims of sexual abuse. Shawna Tropp and Mary Ellsberg, “Addressing Violence against Women within the Education Sector”, prepared for the World Bank’s Gender and Development Group, PREM, February 2006, p. 2. The petitioners’ brief of observations, received at the IACHR on February 20, 2008, p. 2. 17 The petitioners state that the IACHR has previously expressed its concern over the criminalization of sexual offenses and their interpretation in Ecuador, and the impact of that interpretation on the rights of women in Ecuador to live a life free of violence. The petitioners mention in this connection the Commission’s Report on the Situation of Human Rights in Ecuador, OEA/Ser.L/V/II.96, Doc. 10 rev. 1, April 24, 1997. Original petition received at the IACHR on October 2, 2006, paragraph 130. 16 9