threatens the life and survival of its members and, furthermore, has jeopardized the People’s right to preserve and transmit its cultural heritage. The Commission added that the detonation of explosives had destroyed forests, water sources, caves, subterranean rivers and sacred sites, causing the animals to migrate, and that the placement of explosives in areas traditionally used for hunting had prevented them from gathering food, reducing the ability of the People to ensure their subsistence and, thus, disrupting their life cycle. The Commission also argued that, when the Association of the Sarayaku People declared the state of emergency, daily economic, administrative and academic activities were suspended for three months, during which time the members of the community survived on resources from the jungle, because their crops and food ran out. All this also affected the possibility of the members of the Sarayaku People leading a decent life. In this context, the State had failed to adopt the necessary positive measures available to it, which would reasonably have been expected to prevent or avoid the danger to the right to life of members of the said People. 234. The representatives considered that the State had incurred responsibility by placing the members of the Sarayaku People at serious risk as a result of the oil company’s “unconsulted” incursion into their territory. They also argued that the State had not taken the necessary and sufficient measures to ensure decent living conditions for all the members of the Sarayaku People, “affecting their different way of life, their individual and collective life project and their development model,” which constituted a violation of Article 4(1) of the Convention. They further argued that the State had not taken any steps to fulfill its obligation to protect the community, taking into account the special situation of vulnerability of the indigenous people due to the incursion by the oil company. They argued that, during the period of food shortages and state of emergency, there were case of illnesses that mainly affected children and the elderly, a situation described as “fatal to the health of Sarayaku members who were prevented from having access to health care centers,” which affected their right to life. The representatives also argued that the State had not provided information on the amount of pentolite that had been left on the surface. They added that relations between the Sarayaku and neighboring communities and within the community itself had been affected, and this had seriously disrupted the safety, tranquility and way of life of the members of the People. 235. The State considered that, within the system of guarantees established in the Convention, the right to life has priority and, therefore, the cases in which the State can be declared responsible for the violation of this right for having failed to respond with due diligence are very exceptional. In this case, the State reiterated that it cannot be claimed that the impact of the oil company’s activities has caused serious harm to the conditions required for a decent life for the Sarayaku. With regard to the placement of explosives, the State has informed the Court of the progress made in removing these explosives under the provisional measures. Regarding the supposed illnesses and other alleged impacts, the State emphasized that no impartial medical certificates or other scientific evidence were provided, but rather affidavits from Sarayaku members and “studies of questionable reliability.” In addition, the State argued that it was illogical to claim violations of the right to life owing adverse effects on the right to health, to food, to access to clean water, or to access to means of subsistence as a result of a private activity that had been interrupted and had not even reached the seismic survey phase. Thus, it was not appropriate to cite contamination or substantial disruption of the way of life of the indigenous peoples of the area. Lastly, he State argued that it had not failed to comply with its positive or negative obligation to protect the right to life, inasmuch as it had ensured compliance with the regulations applicable at the time of the facts for natural resource extraction activities. A.2 Rights to personal integrity303 and to personal liberty304 303 Article 5 of the American Convention stipulates: “1. Every person has the right to have his physical, mental and moral integrity respected. 2. No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. All persons deprived of their liberty shall be treated with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person […].” 67