Dr. Maria Cahill:

To respond to the housekeeping question, I am not involved in any political party and I have never campaigned, although today makes me want to do so.

Senator Healy Eames asked whether it would be possible to legislate to satisfy the requirements of the European Court of Human Rights without head 4. The answer to this question is to be found in rule 6 of the rules of the Committee of Ministers for the supervision of the execution of judgments and decisions of the European Court of Human Rights and the terms of friendly settlement. Countries are supposed to legislate to prevent the recurrence of the breach which gave rise to the violation that was found in the relevant judgment. In that circumstance, one is dealing with a woman, applicant C in the A, B and C v. Ireland decision, who discerned herself, by means of a Google search, that there was a risk to her life and wanted to have this risk recognised. It was a physical, medical risk to her life and does not, therefore, come under head 4. For this reason, it would be possible under the legislation to remove that head and still be in conformity with what the European Court of Human Rights decided. In general, as was reiterated on 10 April this year, the principle that the Committee of Ministers uses is the principle of subsidiarity under which a member state should choose how it wants to become compliant with a decision of the European Court of Human Rights. To respond to Deputy John Paul Phelan, that is the Supreme Court decision on the X case.

Deputy Terence Flanagan asked whether the Oireachtas had been acting unconstitutionally for all these years. I agree with Mrs. Justice McGuinness that is not the case. On the constitutional obligation to legislate for every Supreme Court decision, there are several Supreme Court decisions, for example, the re a ward of court case, the P.K.U. test case, the Ryan v. the Attorney General case and the Kennedy case, where the Oireachtas has not legislated for the rights that were recognised. It cannot be said, therefore, that there is a constitutional obligation to legislate for every decision or right that has been recognised.

I ask myself if I dare to restate my position on the X case. My position is that the court did not determine the question of whether suicidality could be treated by abortion and, therefore, suicidality is not part of the judgment of the court. I do not know why Members of the Oireachtas have been told so often that it is necessary to legislate. That view must be based on non-legal considerations.