As particularly for this case, more often than civil and political rights, economic, social and cultural rights contain programmatic elements, requiring States to take positive measures (Toebes, p.6). However, these "positive measures" ultimately force the State to provide material support for the rights, and if they lack the means to provide this support, how can we blame them for breaching the promises they had made to International Organizations?
Despite this, I am utterly sure the State had to SOMEHOW ensure provision of appropriate medical treatment for HIV/AIDS patients, especially for the pregnant woman, who desperately needed access to medically indicated care. Otherwise the whole meaning of living in a community (and not alone by-oneself in some secluded area) loses any sense at all.
Thus, in this paper I attempted to show where to find the means for national and international support for the right to health in general and for the case provided in particular. Discussion of both national and international health laws shows that all of them were violated by denial of access to health care services for a pregnant woman with positive HIV-status. Violations occurred in different areas of concern both from the point of view of being pregnant (especially with viable fetus) and being HIV-positive. While this particular woman was fortunate enough to escape further medical complications, this must not become the precedent for others, who might not be that fortunate.…
