CCPR/C/119/D/2425/2014 that in order to terminate her non-viable pregnancy, she was required to travel abroad at her own expense. 7.12 The Committee recalls paragraph 13 of its general comment No. 18 (1989) on nondiscrimination, in which it states that not every differentiation of treatment will constitute discrimination, if the criteria for such differentiation are reasonable and objective and if the aim is to achieve a purpose which is legitimate under the Covenant. The Committee notes the author’s claim that she was denied on the basis of her sex access to medical services that she needed in order to preserve her autonomy, dignity and physical and psychological integrity; that, in contrast, male patients and patients in other situations in Ireland are not expected to disregard their health needs and travel abroad in relation to their reproductive functions; and that the State party’s criminalization of abortion subjected her to a genderbased stereotype according to which the primary role of women is reproductive and maternal. The Committee considers that the differential treatment to which the author was subjected in relation to other women who decided to carry to term their unviable pregnancy created a legal distinction between similarly situated women that failed to adequately take into account her medical needs and socioeconomic circumstances and did not meet the requirements of reasonableness, objectivity and legitimacy of purpose. Accordingly, the Committee concludes that the failure of the State party to provide the author with the services that she required constituted discrimination and violated her rights under article 26 of the Covenant. 7.13 In the light of the findings above, the Committee will not separately examine the author’s allegations under articles 2 (1), 3 and 19 of the Covenant. 8. The Committee, acting under article 5 (4) of the Optional Protocol, is of the view that the facts before it disclose a violation of the author’s rights under articles 7, 17 and 26 of the Covenant. 9. In accordance with article 2 (3) (a) of the Covenant, the Committee considers that the State party is under an obligation to provide the author with an effective remedy. This requires it to make full reparation to individuals whose Covenant rights have been violated. Accordingly, the State party is obligated to, inter alia, provide the author with adequate compensation and to make available to her any needed psychological treatment. The State party is also under an obligation to take steps to prevent similar violations occurring in the future. To this end, the State party should amend its law on voluntary termination of pregnancy, including, if necessary, its Constitution, to ensure compliance with the Covenant, including with respect to ensuring effective, timely and accessible procedures for pregnancy termination in Ireland, and take measures to ensure that health-care providers are in a position to supply full information on safe abortion services without fearing being subjected to criminal sanctions,21 as indicated in the present Views. 10. Bearing in mind that, by becoming a party to the Optional Protocol, the State party has recognized the competence of the Committee to determine whether there has been a violation of the Covenant and that, pursuant to article 2 of the Covenant, the State party has undertaken to ensure to all individuals within its territory or subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognized in the Covenant and to provide an effective remedy when it has been determined that a violation has occurred, the Committee wishes to receive from the State party, within 180 days, information about the measures taken to give effect to the Committee’s Views. In addition, it requests the State party to publish the present Views. 21 GE.17-10463 See also CCPR/C/IRL/CO/4, para. 9. 15