The Government has rejected a claim at the European Court of Human Rights that a woman seeking an abortion in Ireland was treated in an inhuman and degrading fashion by the State.
The Government has also rejected claims by the woman's legal team that the State's regulations breached human rights conventions on privacy and family life; the right to receive information; the right to an effective remedy; and the prohibition of discrimination.
The woman, identified only as "D", is an Irish national who was described in court in Strasbourg yesterday as "a woman of education and means". It was a preliminary hearing and a ruling is awaited on whether the case is admissible for a full hearing.
Counsel for "D", Barbara Hewson, told the court the woman's pregnancy with twins in late 2001 was initially "a joyous occasion".
However, after eight weeks one foetus stopped developing and died. The second foetus had Trisomy 18 or Edward's Syndrome, a fatal abnormality.
Ms Hewson told the court her client wished to take no part in a wider debate on abortion but is seeking a declaration that in dealing with lethal, foetal abnormality, the State had breached six articles of the Convention on Human Rights.
She maintained that the devastating impact of the diagnosis was unnecessarily exacerbated by the Regulation of Information (Services Outside the State for Termination of Pregnancies) Act, 1995. This Act prevents a doctor from advocating abortion as well as making a referral for a patient with an abortion provider, where the life of the mother is not at risk.
Counsel for "D" maintained that the State, having advised on the condition, had effectively reneged on its responsibility for treatment. It was also argued that "D" was discriminated against as a pregnant woman or as a pregnant woman with a lethal foetal abnormality.
Counsel explained that ultimately "D" made arrangements with her partner and travelled to Britain for an abortion.
However, counsel for the Government, Donal O'Donnell SC, said the only restrictions imposed by the 1995 Act were limited ones relating to directive counselling or helping to arrange an abortion. Mr O'Donnell argued that the State now guarantees the right to freedom of information on abortion as well as the right to travel.
Mr O'Donnell told the court that a finding in favour of "D" would be, in effect, a direction to Ireland on the type and regulation of such services, an issue into which the court had previously said it would not go. Such a move, he argued, would potentially turn the Court of Human Rights into a legislative body, and that had not been envisaged by the signatories to the convention.
In relation to "D"'s claims, Mr O'Donnell said she had not sought legal advice at the time of the pregnancy, nor had she sought to challenge the regulations or seek a hearing in camera or use a pseudonym, all of which were avenues open to her.
Mr O'Donnell said that even in the time after the abortion it had been open to "D" to seek a declaration that her rights had been abused, but she had not done this. The Court of Human Rights was being used as a court of first instance, Mr O'Donnell argued.
In response to a question from the Irish member of the court, Mr Justice Hedigan, Ms Hewson said the Court of Human Rights could accept jurisdiction where an applicant had no reasonable prospect of success in the legal system in his or her home country.
Ms Hewson said time and anonymity had been issues during the pregnancy, while after the pregnancy the issues were anonymity and the tendency of the Irish courts to treat the issue as "moot", something that is past or no longer relevant.
Where this has happened applicants could be left with substantial legal bills for the Government's legal team as well as the likelihood of being identified, she said.
In his response to Judge Hedigan, Mr O'Donnell instanced the "X" case and the "C" case, which had demonstrated that anonymity was available to litigants. A date for the court's ruling has not been set.