Ms Christina Zampas:

I am not sure but I think someone from the WHO is coming before the committee. It might be best to ask him.

There was a question on the value systems and a suggestion that they are biased. I mentioned this briefly in my opening statement. When Ireland ratifies treaties, for example the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights, ICCPR, the Human Rights Committee monitors Ireland's adherence to the treaty. That is the committee that issued the decision in the Whelan and Mellet cases. Article 2 of the ICCPR clearly states that the State will fulfil its obligations under the provisions of the treaty to all persons within its territory without discrimination. One of the treaty's provisions actually creates the human rights body that monitors State compliance. When Ireland ratified that, it ratified itself to come before a committee that has an interpretive mandate. By way of example, on its own the right to privacy means nothing - it is just a phrase. There must be interpretive bodies to define what it means. Ireland has ratified the treaty which creates this interpretive body and also the optional protocol which Ms Mellet and Ms Whelan used when they filed cases against Ireland. Ireland agreed to provide that individuals within its territory can file individual complaints against Ireland. If Ireland were to ignore that, it would ignore the essence of ratification of the optional protocol to begin with.