CCPR/C/130/D/3639/2019 expose the baby, the author would have to assume responsibility for it, in keeping with the patient’s right to autonomy. The author’s lawyer issued a document requesting that the author undergo continual check-ups until she went into labour naturally or decided to have her labour induced. The doctors consulted the hospital’s legal department and refused to sign the document, as it contravened the medical directive according to which labour should be induced at 41 weeks and 6 days of gestation. The doctors also informed the author that, although her autonomy took precedence, they would be required to notify the judicial authorities if they considered the health or life of her baby to be at serious risk. 4.2 On 5 August 2019, the author returned to the hospital after her waters had broken. Once there, she was told that, in view of the risks, it would be necessary to induce labour. She agreed and later requested epidural anaesthesia. When her son was born on 6 August 2019, he required some newborn resuscitation care. However, this was a common eventuality about which the author had been informed previously. The baby’s condition was stabilized and he was returned to the author. 4.3 In the light of the above, the State party argues that the communication has been devoid of purpose from the outset and that no protective measures are necessary, since the author gave birth after going to the hospital voluntarily. 4.4 The State party affirms that the author was never subjected to forced induction of labour. Her wish not to have her labour induced was respected until her waters broke prematurely (a possibility that had been explained to her), at which point she went to the hospital of her own accord and agreed to have her labour induced. The State party notes that no implements were used and no episiotomy was performed on her. 4.5 The State party alleges that the author has not exhausted all the domestic remedies available to her. According to the State party, there is not a single piece of evidence to suggest that, prior to giving birth, she approached the Spanish judicial authorities to request a measure that would enable her to avoid the alleged risk to which the author claimed to be exposed. The Spanish legal system provides for a legal remedy by which what are known as “simple de facto actions” may be initiated. This remedy involves the adoption of protective measures and highly protective measures in accordance with Act No. 29/1998 on administrative jurisdiction. Under article 135 of the Act, highly protective measures allow for an immediate judicial response (within two days) without the administrative authorities even having to be notified. 4.6 The State party therefore requests that no protective measures be adopted and that the communication be discontinued because it clearly serves no purpose and domestic remedies have not been exhausted. State party’s additional observations on admissibility 5.1 In its observations on admissibility of 28 October 2019, the State party reiterates that the communication serves no purpose and that the author has not exhausted domestic remedies. The State party adds that the author’s reluctance to follow medical guidelines put her baby’s health at risk. 5.2 Moreover, the State party alleges that the author has abused the “right of submission” under article 3 of the Optional Protocol. Author’s comments on the State party’s observations on admissibility 6.1 The author’s comments of 30 January 2020 contain her account of the events from the point when she went into labour on 5 August 2019: having already been admitted to hospital, she was asked to sign a consent form for induced labour, which surprised her because her cervix was already dilating and she was in labour. The hospital staff told her that this was necessary in case her cervix stopped dilating and so she signed the document. Later, to the author’s surprise, a midwife gave her oxytocin. The author stated that she had not agreed to the use of this drug and that she had signed the consent form because she had been told that it was necessary in case her cervix stopped dilating. The author then said that her amniotic sac had broken only an hour beforehand and that she therefore wished to give birth as naturally as possible, provided that it was safe for her and the baby. She was told that the GE.21-07305 3