considering her special need for a prompt resolution of her situation, given the specific circumstances of the case. 11. They add that, given the non-existence of a preventive domestic remedy that would allow prompt resolution of the controversy between the rights of the woman and those accorded to the fetus, the only remedy available to argue the right to life pursuant to Article 2 of the Constitution was an amparo action. The petitioners state that the judgment handed down was based on Articles 32 and 35 of the Law of Constitutional Procedures, which refer inter alia to the inadmissibility of a civil suit for compensation of damages in cases in which the amparo is not granted, and on the final nature of the judgment, which is reaffirmed in Articles 81 and 86 of the aforementioned law. This last-mentioned norm states that there is no appeal against the judgment. For that reason, the petitioners maintain that the only available remedy was duly exhausted. They likewise state that Beatriz is not entitled to receive reparation for the violations of her rights inasmuch as her amparo action was denied and they add the exception provided for in Article 46.2.a of the American Convention and Article 31.2.a of the Rules of Procedure of the IACHR applies in this case. 12. They assert that the facts reported have not been examined or resolved by the Commission in terms of merits nor is the case being heard by any other international agency empowered to rule on the merits. Without prejudice thereto, on November 13, 2013, they had heard that four special United Nations mechanisms had asked the State for information regarding the case in question.4 Nevertheless, they maintain that those mechanisms do not constitute an "international governmental organization" in the sense of Article 33 of the Rules of Procedure of the IACHR. They add that the special mechanisms are not obliged to transmit replies provided by States to those who provided the information, so that no adversarial proceedings result that might result in an "effective settlement" of the matters addressed in the present petition. They also state that, according to information in the public domain, there is no indication that the special mechanisms have followed up on the State's response with a view to issuing any opinion on the merits of the case. 13. Given the facts of the case as described above, the petitioners argue that the State failed to meet its obligation to respect the rights to life and personal integrity/human treatment of Beatriz and to fulfill its duty to prevent violations of those rights, a situation that, in addition, amounted to violence against women, due to the passive conduct of the health authorities who failed to proceed to interrupt the pregnancy, thereby allowing the pregnancy to continue past the 20th week and to require more extensive surgery, placing Beatriz's life at extreme risk and causing her and her family profound uncertainty and suffering. For that reason, the petitioners also allege violations of her family members' right to integrity. They further argue that these impairments to Beatriz's life, personal integrity and comprehensive health constituted cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment and give rise to aggravated liability, due to noncompliance with the precautionary measures issued by the Commission. They also state that the authorities violated Beatriz's right to privacy and personal integrity. Finally, they argue that the criminal laws in force on abortion violate the principle of legality given the situation of legal uncertainty generated for Beatriz, who was left not knowing whether she would in fact be prosecuted for consenting and proceeding with the interruption of the gestation of the anencephalic fetus, and that said legislation constitutes a regression vis-à-vis the State's international obligations to progressively achieve full materialization of the right to health. They argue that the restrictive constitutional and criminal law that bans all forms of abortion in practice discriminates disproportionately against girls and women. 14. The State maintains that it acknowledges its obligation to guarantee the human rights of women in its territory and points to the implementation of a number of public policies and the adoption of laws and carrying out of programs that seek to make gender equality a reality, together with women's right to a life free from violence and discrimination. The State also provides ample details of the medical care provided to Beatriz and of the judicial proceedings conducted on her behalf before the CS-CSJ, as well as in the proceedings 4 The Chair of the Working Group on the issue of discrimination against women in law and in practice; the Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health; the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment; and the Special Rapporteur on violence against women, including its causes and consequences requested information from the State on April 18, 2013. The State replied on May 21, 2013. 5