legislation, policies, programs, and resources allocated facilitate access to social security for all members of society. In that framework, specific measures should be adopted for implementing social security plans, in particular those aimed at protecting underprivileged and marginalized persons and groups, and oversight measures should be adopted to learn to what point that right is exercised.357 267. Due to the redistributive nature of social security, this right plays a key role and is an essential instrument for fighting poverty and social inequalities, thus it should not be seen solely in an economic light, but also mindful of a rights-based approach. In particular, the IACHR notes that for social security to be accessible, existing coverage must include those persons in the most vulnerable and impoverished situations; thus, states must adopt plans that include them. 268. In addition, the IACHR recognizes that social security, from a health perspective, increases the use of health centers, goods and services, and promote equal access and may afford greater financial protection for the poor. In this way, for the State’s social security programs to have a rights-based approach, their design and scope should not only take account of the financial capacity and employment situation of the populations that receive the services, but also their specific health needs.358 2.4 Attribution of state responsibility 269. The IACHR also understands that in light of the duty to ensure provided for at Article 1(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights and the interpretation thereof by the organs of the inter-American system, the states parties should prevent the violation of the rights set forth in Article 26 in the context of business activities. According to the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, that duty includes adopting a legal framework that makes it possible to ensure the protection of those rights and that provides effective access to resources for the victims of such violations. Among the actions that ensure an adequate legal framework, the State should demand that companies exercise due diligence in respect of human rights so as to identify, prevent, and mitigate the risks of the violation of rights in the context of their activities.359 270. As was established in the section on context, in the instant case it is not disputed that the department of Gracias a Dios and in particular the Mosquitia region is generally impoverished. The contextual sources also describe an intrinsic relationship between that situation and the issues that are presented in the instant case. It is important to note that the Commission and the Court have referred on several occasions to the greater risk of human rights violations faced by persons living in poverty.360 The Inter-American Court has noted that “it does not suffice for the states to refrain from violating rights; rather, there is an imperative to adopt positive measures that can be determined in light of the particular needs of protection of the person in question, whether due to his or her personal situation, or due to a situation he or she is facing 361, such as extreme poverty or marginalization.”362 Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. General Comment 19. The right to social security, February 4, 2008. Paras. 29-31. Report of the Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health. Doc. A/67/302, August 13, 2012, paras. 42-45. 359 Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. General Comment 24, August 10, 2017. 360 I/A Court HR. Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of November 19, 1999. Series C No. 63, Para. 139; Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre v. Colombia. Judgment of January 31, 2006. Series C No. 140. Para. 120; Case of Xákmok Kásek Indigenous Community v. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 24, 2010 Series C No. 214, para. 187; Case of the Barrios Family v. Venezuela. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 24, 2011. Series C No. 237. Para. 48. 361 I/A Court HR. Case of the Workers of the Hacienda Brasil Verde v. Brazil. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of October 20, 2016. Series C No. 318, para. 337; I/A Court HR. Case of Artavia Murillo et al. ("In vitro Fertilization ") v. Costa Rica. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 28, 2012. Series C No. 257, paras. 292 and 285; I/A Court HR. Case of Furlan and Family v. Argentina. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 31, 2012. Series C No. 246, para. 134; I/A Court HR, Case of Kichwa Indigenous People of Sarayaku v. Ecuador. Merits and Reparations. Judgment of June 27, 2012. Series C No. 245, para. 244; I/A Court HR, Case of Ximenes Lopes v. Brazil. Judgment of July 4, 2006. Series C No. 149, para. 103, and I/A Court HR. Case of the Mapiripán Massacre v. Colombia. Judgment of September 15, 2005. Series C No. 134, paras. 111 and 113. 362 I/A Court HR. Case of the Workers of the Hacienda Brasil Verde v. Brazil. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of October 20, 2016. Series C No. 318, para. 337. I/A Court HR. Case of Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of March 29, 2006. Series C No. 146, para. 154; I/A Court HR. Case of Ximenes Lopes v. Brazil. Judgment of July 4, 2006. Series C No. 149, para. 104; I/A Court HR. Case of Xákmok Kásek Indigenous Community v. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 24, 2010. Series C No. 214, para. 233. 357 358 48