12 33. In my opinion, the evolutionary interpretation of the right to life embodied in the American Convention must take into account the socio-economic situation of Paraguay and of most Latin American countries, where extreme poverty has increased in absolute and relative terms despite implementation of social protection policies. Interpretation of the right to life involves not only compliance, by the State, with social protection measures that temporarily ensure minimum living conditions, but also addressing the causes generate poverty, reproduce its conditions, and create additional poor population, as discussed in the framework of the United Nations.28 This poses the need to link measures for eradication of poverty with the set of phenomena that give rise to it, bearing in mind the impact of decisions by the States, international and multi-lateral bodies;29 reproduction of conditions of poverty entails responsibilities of the international and national actors and institutions involved. 34. In this context, the ability of the States to intervene, in developing countries such as Paraguay, and application of international provisions regarding extreme poverty are not a juridical matter that involves only the State, which is often subject both to its limited financial resources and to structural factors linked to the “adjustment process,” which the Paraguayan State does not control in an isolated manner, as set forth in the Reply to the Application (para. 185).30 International responsibility is not limited to the right to international assistance when the State Party cannot attain, on its own, the model set forth in the Covenant, embodied in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.31 35. In this view, growing poverty is the result of primarily economic and financial decisions taken by private actors in agreement with public actors, with far greater power than the States of developing countries. Responsibilities of multi-national 28 UNESCO, Poverty as a violation of Human Rights. 2004, by José Bengoa, Member of the United Nations Sub-Commission for the protection and promotion of human rights, Chairman of the United Nations working group on extreme poverty. 29 E/CN.4/ Sub 2/2004/44 para. 11, 17 and 19. 30 Inter-American Court of Human Rights. Joint concurring opinion of judges Antônio Augusto Cançado Trindade and Alirio Abreu Burelli, Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.), para. 6. Bearing in mind that conduct of the States, and especially of small ones, vis-à-vis multinational corporations that control markets exhibits weakness, the international community as a whole must effectively acknowledge that the responsibility is shared by the actors involved. E/CN.4/Sub 2/2004/44, para. 19 and 20. 31 Articles 2 and 11 of the Covenant are pertinent. The text of the article refers to “international assistance and co-operation”, while Article 11 establish that “The States Parties to the present Covenant, recognizing the fundamental right of everyone to be free from hunger, shall take, individually and through international co-operation, the measures, including specific programmes, which are needed (...) Taking into account the problems of both food-importing and food-exporting countries, to ensure an equitable distribution of world food supplies in relation to need.” E/CN.4/1995/101. para. 64.