Ms Emily Logan:

I will start with the Deputy's first question about the Minister for Health's response to the Amanda Mellet case. There are two parts to that question, the first being the possible challenge to the UN's competence. That is not uncommon in jurisdictions. Certainly in the past 14 years I have been involved a lot with and been in front of UN bodies. I know it is a political response, so it is not uncommon that politically a government may seek to undermine the competence of the UN Human Rights Committee. The committee has said that it is well aware of this and recognises it. The UN Human Rights Committee prints what are called general comments that are thematic elaborations on its thinking on things. The committee has said in individual communications that it recognises that while it is not a judicial body, it arrives at its decisions in a judicial spirit, which undermines the principles of impartiality and independence. The second part of that question relates to the legal basis for those decisions, which speaks to the Deputy's question about the response of the Minister, Deputy Harris. In linking this with the international law principles of the Vienna Convention, there is something called the "good faith principle". If a government ratifies a treaty, it creates a legitimate expectation that it is going to comply with the terms of that treaty. I would say that the Minister for Health's actions indicated a good faith response to the views of the UN Human Rights Committee in the Mellet case.

Will the Deputy please repeat the second question?