188. The Court has emphasized that a State cannot be held responsible for every situation that jeopardizes the right to life. Taking into account the difficulties involved in the planning and adoption of public policies and the operational choices that must be made based on priorities and resources, the positive obligations of the State must be interpreted in such a way that an impossible or disproportionate burden is not placed on the authorities.196 To give rise to this positive obligation, it must be established that, at the time of the facts, the authorities knew or should have known of the existence of a situation of real and immediate risk to the life of an individual or group of specific individuals, and that they did not take the necessary measures within their powers that could reasonably be expected to prevent or avoid that risk.197 189. In the instant case, on June 11, 1991,198 and on September 22, 1992,199 INDI officials verified the situation of special vulnerability of the members of the Community because they did not have title to their land. On November 11, 1993, the indigenous leaders repeated to the IBR that their land claim was a priority because “they [were] living in extremely difficult and precarious conditions and [did] not know how long they [could] hold out.”200 190. The Prosecutor for labor matters inspected the Salazar, Cora-í, and Maroma Ranches. He recorded “the precarious situation in which [the members of the Community live] […] without minimum conditions of hygiene, clothing, and space sufficient for the number of inhabitants; and also [the] houses […] do not have impermeable walls or tile roofs and were built in such a way that they endangered the safety and health of the indigenous people; the floors [were] of earth.”201 In addition, the said report indicated “that they received very limited rations.”202 During the visit, irregularities were also verified with regard to the labor exploitation suffered by the members of the Community. 191. On April 17, 2009, the President of the Republic and the Ministry of Education and Culture, issued Decree No. 1830,203 declaring a state of emergency in two indigenous communities,204 one of them the Xákmok Kásek Community. The pertinent part of Decree No. 1830 indicates that: Due to situations beyond their control, these Communities are deprived of access to the traditional means of subsistence related to their pre-colonial identity, within the territories claimed as part of their ancestral territories, […] [and this] hampers the normal way of life of the said communities 196 Cf. Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre, supra note 195, para. 124, and Case of the Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay, supra note 20, para. 155. 197 Cf. Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre, supra note 195, paras. 123 and 124, and Case of the Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay, supra note 20, para. 155. 198 Cf. Handwritten record of an on-site inspection of the Xákmok Kásek Community made on June 11, 1991, in relation to the land claimed (file of appendices to the application, appendix 3, tome II, folio 790), and report of on-site visit made by Pastor Cabanellas, supra note 62, folios 791 to 794). 199 Cf. Report on the expanded on-site visit on September 22, 1992, supra note 62, folios 883 and 884). 200 Communication of the Community addressed to the IBR President of November 11, 1993, supra note 65 (file of appendices to the application, attachment 5, folio 2351). 201 Cf. Report prepared by the Prosecutor for labor matters, undated (file of appendices to the application, appendix 3, tome IV, folio 1808). 202 Cf. Report prepared by the Prosecutor for labor matters, undated, supra note 201, folio 1810. 203 Cf. Decree No. 1830 of April 17, 2009 (file of attachments to the answer to the application, attachment 7, folios 3643 to 3646). 204 The said Decree No. 1830 of April 17, 2009, supra note 203, also refers to the Kelyenmagategma Community of the Enxet and Y´ara Marantu People. 43