reported “the issue of 66 indigenous identity cards, of which 26 were for adults and 40 for minors.”278 Additionally, the Civil Registry Office had issued birth certificates for 25 minors and 43 copies of birth certificates.279 The State indicated that it “ha[d] complied with its obligation to respect the right to juridical personality and also ha[d] respected the right to identity of the members of the Community, by granting them identity documents that allow the exercise of any right.” 248. The Court has considered that the content of the right to recognition of juridical personality is that it recognizes to the individual: anywhere, as a subject of rights and obligations, able to enjoy the basic civil rights[, which] implies the capacity to be the holder of rights (capacity and enjoyment) and of obligations; the violation of this recognition supposes the denial in absolute terms of the possibility of being a holder of [these basic civil] rights and obligations.280 249. This right represents a parameter for determining whether an individual is the holder of the rights in question and whether he or she can exercise them; consequently, the denial of this recognition makes the individual vulnerable before the State or private individuals.281 Thus, the content of the right to recognition of juridical personality refers to the correlative general duty of the State to ensure the legal conditions and means for this right to be freely and fully exercised by its holders.282 250. However, in application of the principle of effectiveness and of the needs for protection in cases of vulnerable individuals and groups, this Court has followed a broader legal interpretation of this right by finding that the State is especially “obliged to guarantee to those persons in a situation of vulnerability, exclusion and discrimination, the legal and administrative conditions that ensure them the exercise of this right, pursuant to the principle of equality under the law.”283 For example, in the case of the Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community, the Court considered that its members had “remained in a legal limbo in which, although they were born and died in Paraguay, their very existence and identity were never legally recognized; in other words, they did not have juridical personality.”284 251. In this case, the same shortcomings that the Court found in the Sawhoyamaxa case can be observed. Several of the individuals who died did not have birth certificates or, at least, they were not provided, and the respective death certificates where not issued, because they did not have the essential identity documents for the determination of their civil rights. 278 Cf. Report of Miriam Acosta, INDI fieldworker, of December 21, 2009 (file of attachments to the answer to the application, attachment 1(3), folio 3281). 279 Cf. Report of Zunilda López, Civil Registry official, of December 20, 2009 (file of attachments to the answer to the application, attachment 1(3), folio 3283). 280 Cf. Case of Bámaca Velásquez v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of November 25, 2000. Series C No. 70, para. 179; Case of Ticona Estrada et al. v. Bolivia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008. Series C No. 191, para. 69, and Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 22, 2009. Series C No. 202, para. 87. 281 Cf. Case of the Yean and Bosico Girls v. Dominican Republic. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 8, 2005. Series C No. 130, para. 179; Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru, supra note 280, para. 88, and Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico, supra note 12, para. 156. 282 Cf. Case of the Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay, supra note 20, para. 189; Case of the Saramaka People v. Suriname, supra note 16, para. 167, and Case of Chitay Nech et al. v. Guatemala, supra note 8, para. 101. 283 Case of the Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay, supra note 20, para. 189, and Case of the Saramaka People v. Suriname, supra note 16, para. 166. 284 Case of the Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay, supra note 20, para. 192. 58