CCPR/C/119/D/2425/2014 abortion (risk to life) and arrangements for provision of information about obtaining abortion outside the country in other circumstances, reflects the nuanced and proportionate approach to the deeply held views of the Irish electorate on the profound moral question of the extent to which the interests of a fetus should be protected and balanced against the rights of women. 7.3 The author claims that the legal prohibition of abortion caused her to suffer cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, in that she was denied the health care and bereavement support she needed in Ireland; felt pressurized to carry to term a dying fetus; had to terminate her pregnancy abroad without emotional support from her family; and was subjected to intense stigmatization and loss of dignity. The State party contests the author’s claims by arguing, inter alia, that the prohibition on abortion seeks to balance the competing rights between the fetus and the woman; and that there were no arbitrary decision-making processes or acts of “infliction” by any person or State agent that caused or contributed to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. The State party also maintains that its laws guarantee access to information about abortion services provided abroad and constitute part of the balance it struck between the competing rights. 7.4 The Committee recalls that the legality of a particular conduct or action under domestic law does not mean that it cannot infringe article 7 of the Covenant. 17 The Committee notes that in the present case, the author’s claims appertain to her treatment in State health facilities, which was the direct result of the legislation in place in Ireland. The existence of such legislation engages the responsibility of the State party for the treatment of the author, and cannot be invoked to justify a failure to meet the requirements of article 7. 7.5 The Committee considers it well established that the author was in a highly vulnerable position after learning that her much-wanted pregnancy was not viable. As documented in the psychological reports submitted to the Committee, her physical and mental situation was exacerbated by the following circumstances arising from the prevailing legislative framework in Ireland and by the author’s treatment by some of her health-care providers in Ireland: being unable to continue to receive medical care and health insurance coverage for her treatment from the Irish health-care system; feeling abandoned by the Irish health-care system and having to gather information on her medical options alone; being forced to choose between continuing her non-viable pregnancy or travelling to another country while carrying a dying fetus, at personal expense and separated from the support of her family; suffering the shame and stigma associated with the criminalization of abortion of a fatally ill fetus; having to leave the baby’s remains in a foreign country; and failing to receive necessary and appropriate bereavement counselling in Ireland. Much of the suffering the author endured could have been mitigated if she had been allowed to terminate her pregnancy in the familiar environment of her own country and under the care of health professionals whom she knew and trusted, and if she had received necessary health benefits that were available in Ireland, which she would have enjoyed had she continued her non-viable pregnancy to deliver a stillborn child in Ireland. 7.6 The Committee considers that the author’s suffering was further aggravated by the obstacles she faced in receiving information she needed about appropriate medical options from her known and trusted medical providers. The Committee notes that the abortion information act legally restricts the circumstances in which any individual may provide information about lawfully available abortion services in Ireland or overseas, and criminalizes advocating or promoting the termination of pregnancy. The Committee further notes the author’s unrefuted statements that the health professionals in Ireland did not provide her with clear and detailed information on how to terminate her pregnancy in another jurisdiction or from which other health-care providers she could obtain such information, thereby disrupting the provision of medical care and advice that she needed and exacerbating her distress. 7.7. The Committee considers that, taken together, the facts described in paragraphs 7.57.6 above establish a high level of mental anguish that was caused to the author by a 17 GE.17-10463 See communication No. 2324/2013, Mellet v. Ireland, Views adopted on 31 March 2016, para. 7.4. See also the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, art. 27. 13