CCPR/C/119/D/2425/2014 combination of acts and omissions attributable to the State party, which violates the prohibition against cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment found in article 7 of the Covenant. The Committee also notes in this regard, as stated in paragraph 3 of general comment No. 20, that the text of article 7 may not be limited, and no justification or extenuating circumstances may be invoked to excuse a violation of article 7 for any reason. Accordingly, it cannot accept as a justification or extenuating circumstances the State party’s explanations concerning the balance between moral and political considerations that underlies the legal framework existing in Ireland. 7.8 The author further claims that by denying her the only option that would have respected her physical and psychological integrity and reproductive autonomy under the circumstances of this case (allowing her to terminate her pregnancy in Ireland), the State party interfered arbitrarily with her right to privacy under article 17 of the Covenant. The Committee recalls its jurisprudence according to which the scope of article 17 encompasses a woman’s decision to request termination of pregnancy. 18 In the present case, the State party interfered with the author’s decision not to continue her non-viable pregnancy, pursuant to article 40.3.3 of the Constitution and the Offences against the Person Act. Under these circumstances, the question before the Committee is not whether such interference has a legal basis in domestic law, but rather whether or not the application of domestic law was arbitrary under the Covenant, as even interference provided for by law should be in accordance with the provisions, aims and objectives of the Covenant and should be, in any event, reasonable in the particular circumstances. 19 The State party argues, in this connection, that the interference was not arbitrary, since it was proportionate to the legitimate aims of the Covenant, taking into account a carefully considered balance between protection of the fetus and the rights of women. 7.9 The Committee considers that the balance that the State party has chosen to strike between protection of the fetus and the rights of the woman in the present case cannot be justified. The Committee refers in this regard to its Views in Mellet v. Ireland, which dealt with a similar refusal to allow for termination of pregnancy involving a fetus suffering from fatal impairment. 20 The Committee notes that, like in Mellet v. Ireland, preventing the author from terminating her pregnancy in Ireland caused her mental anguish and constituted an intrusive interference in her decision as to how best to cope with her pregnancy, notwithstanding the non-viability of the fetus. On this basis, the Committee considers that the State party’s interference in the author’s decision is unreasonable and that it thus constitutes an arbitrary interference in the author’s right to privacy, in violation of article 17 of the Covenant. 7.10 The author claims that by criminalizing abortion on the ground of fatal fetal impairment through legislation that only restricts the rights of women, the State party violated her rights to equality and non-discrimination under articles 2 (1), 3 and 26. The State party maintains that its laws regarding termination of pregnancy are gender-neutral and non-discriminatory. 7.11 The Committee notes that under the laws of the State party, pregnant women who decide to carry to term their fatally impaired fetuses continue to receive the full protection of the public health-care system. Their medical needs continue to be covered by health insurance, and they continue to benefit from the care and advice of their public medical professionals throughout the pregnancy. After miscarriage or delivery of a stillborn child, they receive any needed post-natal medical attention as well as bereavement care. By contrast, women who choose to terminate a non-viable pregnancy must do so in reliance on their own financial resources, entirely outside of the public health-care system. They are denied health insurance coverage for these purposes; they must travel abroad at their own expense to secure an abortion and incur the financial, psychological and physical burdens that such travel imposes, and they are denied needed post-termination medical care and bereavement counselling. The Committee further notes the author’s uncontested allegations 18 19 20 14 See Mellet v. Ireland, para. 7.7; K.N.L.H. v. Peru, para 6.4; and 1608/2007, para 9.3. See also general comment No. 28 (2000) on the equality of rights between men and women, para. 10. See general comment No. 16 (1988) on the right to privacy, para. 4. See Mellet v. Ireland, para. 7.8. GE.17-10463