CCPR/C/116/D/2324/2013 courier, which deeply upset her. The travel abroad also interfered with her ability to mourn her loss. 3.4 The criminalization in Ireland of the abortion services that she needed overwhelmed the author with shame and stigmatized her actions and person, which served as a separate source of severe emotional pain. Claims under article 17 of the Covenant 3.5 The author had to choose between, on the one hand, letting the State make the deeply intimate reproductive decision for her to continue with a non-viable pregnancy under conditions of considerable suffering and, on the other hand, having to travel abroad for a termination. Neither option had the potential to preserve her reproductive autonomy and mental well-being. By denying the author the only option that would have respected her physical and psychological integrity (allowing her to terminate her pregnancy in Ireland), the State interfered arbitrarily in her decision-making. Being abroad, she found herself in an unfamiliar setting and craved the privacy of her own home and the support of her family and friends. The abortion ban thus infringed upon her decision-making in regard to how and where she would best cope with the traumatic circumstances she faced. 3.6 The protection of the “right to life of the unborn”, as set out in the Irish Constitution, can be seen as a moral issue. Defining the moral interest in protecting fetal life as superior to the author’s right to mental stability, psychological integrity and reproductive autonomy, goes against the principle of proportionality and, as such, constitutes a violation of the author’s right to privacy under article 17. 3.7 The interference with the author’s rights was prescribed by law, since abortion is only legal if the woman’s life is in danger. However, the interference was arbitrary. The aim sought by the Irish law (protection of the fetus) was not appropriate or relevant in her situation and the interference with her right to privacy was therefore disproportionate. Even if the Committee accepted that the protection of the fetus can serve as a justification for interfering with a woman’s right to privacy in certain situations, in the author’s case this could not apply. Limiting her right to privacy by denying her the right to terminate a pregnancy that would never result in a viable child cannot be considered a reasonable or proportionate measure to achieve the aim of protecting the fetus. Claims under article 19 of the Covenant 3.8 The right to freedom of information encompasses information concerning health issues, including critical information for making informed choices about one’s sexual and reproductive health. In that respect, the author’s right to access information was violated. 3.9 The Regulation of Information (Services outside the State for Termination of Pregnancies) Act, 1995 (Abortion Information Act) sets forth the circumstances in which information, advice and counselling about abortion services that are legal in another State can be made available in Ireland. It pertains in particular to information that is likely to be required by women who consider traveling abroad for an abortion and regulates the conduct of providers of such information, such as counsellors and health workers. It indicates that the provision of information, advice or counselling about abortion services overseas is not lawful unless, among other factors, the information, advice or counselling is truthful and objective, fully informs the woman of all the courses of action open to her and does not advocate or promote the termination of pregnancy. The Act prohibits the distribution of written information to the public without solicitation by the recipient and has been interpreted to require that a woman specifically request information, advice or counselling about termination of pregnancy before she can receive it. Under section 10, a person who contravenes the relevant provisions of the Act is guilty of an offence and liable to a fine. 4