CEDAW/C/49/D/17/2008 information to subsequently review in these official documents that would clarify the nature of Ms. da Silva Pimentel Teixeira’s death. 5.17 Lastly, the author claims that although most states in Brazil have maternal mortality committees, which are designed to investigate suspected maternal deaths on both a state and local level, there is no such committee in the city of Belford Roxo, where Ms. da Silva Pimentel Teixeira lived. Her death was investigated by an outside committee, the health system Mortality Committee, which only examined her medical records and did not conduct any further investigation, even though such an investigation is required by the Ministry of Health. Furthermore, the reliance of the State party on the decision of the Mortality Committee raises concerns because the State has refused to submit this decision to the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 6.1 In accordance with rule 64 of its rules of procedure, the Committee shall decide whether the communication is admissible or inadmissible under the Optional Protocol to the Convention. Pursuant to rule 72, paragraph 4, of its rules of procedure, it shall do so before considering the merits of the communication. 6.2 While noting the State party’s argument that the civil claim of the family of the deceased was still pending and that a judgment was expected in July 2008, the Committee considers that the State has not provided adequate and convincing explanations of some of the issues raised by the author, namely the delay in the appointment of medical expert(s) and the delay in the trial and judgements, which remain pending up to now. The Committee also notes the lack of a comprehensive explanation as to why the two applications of tutela antecipada presented on 11 February 2003 and 16 September 2003 were rejected. The Committee is of the opinion that the aforementioned delays cannot be attributed to the complexity of the case or the number of defendants, and concludes that the eight -year delay that has elapsed since the claim was filed, despite the statement of the State party that it would be decided in July 2008, constitutes an unreasonably prolonged delay within the meaning of article 4, paragraph 1, of the Optional Protocol. 6.3 The Committee considers that the author’s allegations relating to the violations of articles 2 and 12 of the Convention have been sufficiently substantiated for purposes of admissibility. All other admissibility criteria having been met, the Committee declares the communication admissible and proceeds to its examination on the merits. Consideration of the merits 7.1 The Committee has considered the present communication in the light of all the information made available to it by the author and by the State party, as provided for in article 7, paragraph 1, of the Optional Protocol. 7.2 The author claims that Ms. da Silva Pimentel Teixeira’s death constitutes a violation of her right to life and health, under articles 2 and 12, in conjunction with article 1, of the Convention, as the State party did not ensure appropriate medical treatment in connection with pregnancy and did not provide timely emergency obstetric care, hence infringing the right to non-discrimination based on gender, race 18 11-51699