CCPR/C/119/D/2425/2014 (b) The interference with the author’s right to privacy was not necessary or proportionate to a legitimate aim. The State party has not presented arguments specific to the author’s circumstances that would demonstrate the necessity and proportionality of its conduct towards her; (c) The State party failed to demonstrate that its interference with the author’s right to privacy was necessary towards achieving the legitimate aim invoked. As indicated above, the State party’s characterization of the Irish people’s “profound moral choices” is misrepresentative of the views of a majority of Irish people; (d) The State party has failed to demonstrate that its interference in the author’s right to privacy was appropriate or effective in achieving its aim. A criminal legal regime that prohibits women in all circumstances from obtaining an abortion in the jurisdiction, except where there is a real and substantial risk to their lives, and threatens them with significant prison terms in the name of protecting alleged moral choices concerning “the right to life of the unborn”, yet simultaneously includes an explicit provision providing for a right to travel out of the state to obtain an abortion is not a means to its end. Rather, it is a contradiction in terms and calls into question the genuine nature of the State party’s claims; (e) The State party has failed to demonstrate that the interference was proportionate. The trauma and stigma the author endured as a result of the attack on her physical and psychological integrity, dignity and autonomy gave rise to serious mental pain and suffering. In this context, the State party’s laws cannot be described as proportionate or as achieving a careful “balance of competing rights as between the unborn child and its mother”. Instead, the State party prioritized its interest in protecting “the unborn” and offered no protection to the author’s right to privacy. Rather, the author could have faced a severe criminal sentence had she obtained an abortion in Ireland. 5.7 The margin of appreciation doctrine invoked by the State party applies exclusively to the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights and has not been accepted by any other international or regional human rights mechanisms. Furthermore, the Court has never considered the application of the margin of appreciation doctrine to a set of facts similar to those encountered by the author. Claims under article 19 5.8 The author rejects the State party’s claim that it respected her right to information under article 19 by promulgating laws on abortion and establishing crisis pregnancy websites and agencies, and by making indirect and vague allusions to abortion services abroad during her medical consultations. The publicly employed medical professionals treating the author failed to provide her with clear evidence-based medical information on how to obtain a legal abortion in another jurisdiction. The State party is responsible for providing this information and may not shift this burden onto the author or fulfil its obligations in this regard by merely establishing websites with publicly available information. 5.9 The abortion information act represents a system of strict State control governing the manner in which information must be given. Under the Act, doctors may not refer patients to abortion providers abroad. Failure to comply with the Act is an offence subject to a fine. This punitive legal framework deterred the author’s doctors from providing the information she sought, and made her feel like a criminal. 5.10 The author rejects the State party’s claim that her allegations concerning the right to information are unsubstantiated. The author stated in a sworn affidavit that the medical staff at the hospitals in Ireland failed to provide her with the medical information she needed. Her testimony was corroborated by that of several other medical professionals, who noted the serious chilling effect of the abortion information act on health-care professionals in Ireland. 5.11 The State party has not justified its restrictions on the author’s right to information. These restrictions were not prescribed by law and did not comply with article 19 (3) of the Covenant, since they were not formulated with sufficient precision to enable an individual GE.17-10463 11