CEDAW/C/49/D/17/2008 However, over four and a half years later, there has been negligible judicial activity on the civil case and it is likely that it will take several more years for the courts to reach a decision. Specifically, there has been no hearing to date and the Court took three years and 10 months to appoint a medical expert, although court rules require that this be done within 10 days. 3.15 The lack of a meaningful and timely response from the judiciary had a devastating effect on the family, particularly on the daughter of the deceased, who was abandoned by her father and who is now living in precarious conditions (lack of access to psychological services, meagre means for basic necessities such as food, clothing, etc.) with her maternal grandmother. The extraordinary delay in rendering a decision on the requests for tutela antecipada and the inaction on the civil claim have further endangered the rights of the victim’s daughter and posed a risk of irreparable harm. 3.16 The author also alleges that the prior decisions of the Committee support the applicability of the exception to the rule on the exhaustion of domestic remedies. They claim that the finding of the Committee in regard to the length of judicial proceedings in the case of A.T. v. Hungary (communication 2/2003) — i.e., that domestic violence cases do not enjoy priority in judicial proceedings — is analogous to the situation in Brazil, where proceedings involving violence against women and women’s health, especially the health of women from vulnerable groups, including women from low socio-economic backgrounds and women of African descent, are not given priority in the court system. 3.17 The author maintains that the civil claim cannot be considered an effective means of obtaining redress for the human rights violation denounced in the communication and has undermined the purpose of the remedy, the goal of which is to meaningfully address and repair in a practical and immediate fashion the needs of the family. The delay is tantamount to a denial of justice. 3.18 The author maintains that the matter has not been and is currently not being examined under any other procedure of international investigation or settlement. Observations of the State party on admissibility and merits 4.1 By its only submission of 13 August 2008, the State party indicates that it considers the following issues to be connected to the present case: (a) the elimination of discrimination against women in access to health services, particularly those related to pregnancy and labour; (b) the legal adoption of public policies and other concrete measures which ensure the provi sion of reproductive health services; (c) the State’s primary responsibility for women’s health care; and (d) the requirement that available health services assure full informed consent, respect the dignity of all and guarantee confidentiality, and that he alth-care workers be sensitive to the particular demands of women. The State party explains that the right to health in articles 6 and 196 of the Brazilian Federal Constitution sets out the subjective right of individuals under which the State party has bo th positive and negative obligations. It explains that the public health service, through public health policies, is the State apparatus which is responsible for such a right and spells out in detail both the proactive and defensive role of the State in the field of health. It further notes that the concept of the right to health includes several elements, insofar as health is defined as total social, psychic and physical well -being, of which the right to health care represents but one aspect. It also highl ights the difference 8 11-51699