CCPR/C/119/D/2425/2014 to regulate his or her conduct accordingly. 15 The restrictions had no purpose other than to impair the author’s enjoyment of her right to information on abortion services abroad. The restrictions were also disproportionate in the light of their detrimental impact on the author’s dignity and well-being. Claims under articles 2, 3 and 26 5.12 The State party incorrectly asserts that article 40.3.3 of the Constitution is gender neutral. However, this provision does not “balance” the right to life of men, or their enjoyment of other rights. Furthermore, the first part of article 58 of the Offences against the Person Act applies only to women. The legal framework has a distinct and wholly disproportionate impact on women such as the author. 5.13 States parties may not invoke women’s biological differences from men and their reproductive capacity as a basis for restricting their rights. The prohibition of abortion in cases of fatal fetal impairments and non-viable pregnancies is not proportionate to the aim of protecting the fetus. The author, who found herself in these circumstances, was treated as inferior to the fetus and was subjected to wrongful gender stereotyping. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 6.1 Before considering any claims contained in a communication, the Human Rights Committee must decide, in accordance with rule 93 of its rules of procedure, whether the claim is admissible under the Optional Protocol. 6.2 Recalling article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol, the Committee notes that the same matter is not being examined and has not been examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 6.3 The Committee takes note of the author’s claim that she has exhausted all effective domestic remedies available to her. In the absence of any objection by the State party in this connection, the Committee considers that the requirements of article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol have been met. The Committee further notes that the State party does not dispute on any other grounds the admissibility of the communication. Because all admissibility criteria have been met, the Committee considers the communication admissible and proceeds to examine it on the merits. Consideration of the merits 7.1 The Committee has considered the communication in the light of all the information made available to it by the parties, as provided for under article 5 (1) of the Optional Protocol. 7.2 The author of the present communication was informed by public medical professionals during the twentieth week of her pregnancy that her fetus had a fatal condition and would in all likelihood die in utero or shortly after birth. Because of the legal prohibition of abortion in Ireland, the author had to either carry the pregnancy to term, knowing that the fetus would most probably die inside of her, or voluntarily terminate the pregnancy abroad. Article 40.3.3 of the Constitution provides in this respect that “the State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right”. The State party indicates that under article 40.3.3, as interpreted by the Irish Supreme Court, it is lawful to terminate a pregnancy in Ireland if it is established as a matter of probability that there is a real and substantial risk to the life of the woman (as distinct from her health). The State party argues that its constitutional and legislative framework,16 which contains a single exception to the legal prohibition against 15 16 12 Ibid., para. 25. At the time of the events at issue, the Offences against the Person Act imposed the criminal penalty of life imprisonment for a woman or a physician who attempted to terminate a pregnancy. (See para. 2.7 above.) GE.17-10463