7 day, for the basic uses of drinking, food preparation, and hand washing.”8 That the Court observes with concern that, as stated by the representatives and not contested by the State, the amount delivered to the settlements of the Community is not sufficient to satisfy the needs of the victims for more than one week and that, on several occasions, deliveries have been irregular. 29. That, also, the documents provided indicate that “[o]ther uses that require greater amounts of water are satisfied with traditional surface sources located on neighboring properties.”9 These alternative sources correspond to ponds located on private property, which signifies problems of both the quality and the accessibility of the water. First, the water “must be safe, therefore free from micro-organisms, chemical substances and radiological hazards that constitute a threat to a person’s health.”10 The ponds from which the Community obtains water are used by animals, especially livestock, which makes it doubtful that the water is of an adequate quality. Second, “[p]hysical security should not be threatened during access to water facilities and services.”11 According to the representatives, since the ponds are on private property, the victims are prohibited from entering and, on several occasions, threats have been reported. Hence, these sources cannot be considered accessible. Consequently, the only source of safe water of sufficient quality to which the indigenous people have access is the water provided by the State. If the State does not fulfill this task, it endangers the members of the Community, either due to lack of sufficient water, or to the consumption of unhealthy water, or to threats to their physical safety. 30. That, according to the Judgment delivered in this case, the State is obliged to provide medical care to all the members of the Community, especially the children, the elderly and the women, accompanied by regular vaccination and deparasitation campaigns, which respect their traditions and customs. That, from the information provided, the Court concludes that the State has taken a series of measures to comply with this aspect. However, the measures adopted by the State have been insufficient, because they have not avoided more deaths in the Community. 31. That, in its Order of February 2, 2007 (supra Having seen paragraph 2) the Court considered that “the State has not ceased violating the life of the members of the Sawhoyamaxa Community; it maintains them in a situation of high risk, and it has not adopted sufficient preventive measures to avoid the loss of life.” To date, this conclusion of the Court has not varied. Paraguay is still failing to comply with its international commitments. 32. That, according to the Judgment, the State must provide the victims with “food of sufficient quality and quantity.” That, in this regard, the diet that the State must deliver should provide “a mix of nutrients for physical and mental growth, development and maintenance, and physical activity that are in compliance with 8 Cf. Communication of February 1, 2008, addressed by Genaro Cristaldo Ibarra (engineer) to Dr. Norma Duré de Bordón (file of compliance with judgment, Tome III, folios 901 and 902). 9 Cf. Communication of February 1, 2008, supra note 8. 10 Cf. Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, General comment No. 15, “The right to water (articles 11 and 12 of the Covenant)”. United Nations, Document HRI/GEN/1/Rev.7 at 117 (2002), para. 12(b). 11 Cf. Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, General comment No. 15, supra note 10, para. 12(c).