per person to meet all their basic needs, including food and hygiene.214 Also according to international standards, the quality of the water must represent a tolerable level of risk. Judged by these standards, the State has not proved that it is supplying sufficient amounts of water to meet the minimum requirements. Moreover, the State has not submitted updated evidence on the provision of water during 2010, and has not proved that the Community has access to safe sources of water in the “25 de Febrero” settlement where it is currently located. To the contrary, in testimony given during the public hearing, members of the Community indicated, with regard to the provision of water, that “currently, if it is requested, it is not supplied; sometimes it takes a long time; sometimes there is no more water,” and that “[they] suffer a great deal during droughts, because, where they move[d] to, in ‘25 de Febrero,’ there is no water tank, there are no lakes, nothing, just forest.”215 They stated that during droughts, they go to a cistern located around seven kilometers away.216 196. Consequently, the Court considers that the measures taken by the State following the issue of Decree No. 1830 have not been sufficient to provide the members of the Community with water in sufficient quantity and of adequate quality, and this has exposed them to risks and disease. 1.2. Diet 197. Regarding access to food, the members of the Community suffered “serious restrictions […] imposed by those with title to [the] lands [claimed]. One was that they could not have their own livestock (cattle or others) as this was prohibited by the owner, [and] they were forbidden to grow crops [and hunt]”217 (supra paras. 74 and 75). Therefore, they had few available sources of food.218 Also, their diet was limited and of poor quality.219 However, if the members of the Community had money, they could purchase some foodstuffs in the ranch or from the food trucks on the TransChaco Highway. Nevertheless, these options depended on their limited purchasing power.220 214 Committee on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, United Nations. General Comment No. 15. The right to water (articles 11 and 12 of the Covenant), twenty-ninth session (2002), U.N. Doc. HRI/GEN/1/Rev.7, page 106. para. 12. See J. Bartram and G. Howard, “Domestic water quantity, service level and health” WHO, 2002. WHO/SDE/WSH/03.02: “Based on estimates of requirements of lactating women who engage in moderate physical activity in above-average temperatures, a minimum of 7.5 liters per capita per day will meet the requirements of most people under most conditions. This water needs to be of a quality that represents a tolerable level of risk.” See also: P.H. Gleick, (1996) “Basic water requirements for human activities: meeting basic needs”, Water International, 21, pp. 83-92. 215 Cf. Testimony of Maximiliano Ruíz, supra note 28. 216 Cf. Testimony of Maximiliano Ruíz, supra note 28. 217 Cf. CEADUC Anthropological Report, supra note 55, folio 1740. See also: testimony of Tomás Dermott, supra note 24, folio 597; testimony of Marcelino López, supra note 63, folio 585; testimony of Gerardo Larrosa, supra note 75, folio 605, and testimony of Maximiliano Ruíz, supra note 28. 218 Cf. Health evaluation in four Enxet Communities, May and June 2007 (attachments to the pleadings and motions brief, tome VI, folio 2650). 219 Generally, this was composed of and characterized by a cactus with edible fruit, some small plots where papaya and Karanda’y palm were grown, and fishing activities in the ponds. Cf. Health evaluation in four Enxet Communities, supra note 218, folio 2642. 220 Cf. Health Evaluation in four Enxet Communities, supra note 218, folio 2642. 45