1.4. Education 209. With regard to access to educational services, the Commission noted that the Inter-American Commission’s Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples had “verified the precarious conditions of a school attended by around 60 boys and girls from the Community.” He indicated that the “the school is approximately 25 [m2] in size, without a roof that is adequate to provide protection from the rain; there is no floor and no desks, chairs, or educational materials.” The Rapporteur also indicated that “the children are increasingly failing to attend school due to lack of food and water.” The representatives endorsed the facts alleged by the Commission and added that the children “are taught in Guaraní and Spanish, rather than in Sanapaná or Enxet, which are the languages of the members of the Community. 210. The State indicated that it had provided “teaching materials and school meals [through] the Ministry of Education,” and that it planned “to build a school in the Community’s settlement once the land titling procedures had been completed.” It affirmed that it had provided “additional furniture” to the Dora Kent de Eaton Elementary School.249 In addition, the body of evidence reveals that, on October 26, 2009, a training workshop was organized for teachers working in the schools in several communities, including Xákmok Kásek. Also, the National Directorate for Indigenous School Education has concluded that “the teachers say they need to continue their training, and to work on the recovery of the language and the revitalization of the culture.”250 211. According to international standards, States have the obligation to guarantee access to free basic education and its sustainability.251 In particular, when it comes to satisfying the right to basic education of indigenous communities, the State must promote this right from an ethno-educational perspective.252 This means taking positive measures to ensure that the education is culturally acceptable from an ethnically differentiated perspective.253 212. In the instant case, Maximiliano Ruiz, a teacher in the Community, indicated that there are “85 students […] most of whom [belong to the] Sanapaná [ethnic group]; but the program of the Ministry of Education is taught.” He indicated that the children abandon school owing to their situation. Maximiliano Ruiz acknowledged that the State provided “school meals,” but indicated that they were provided sporadically and not on a monthly basis. 213. From the evidence gathered, the Court observes that, although some conditions of the State’s provision of education have improved, the facilities for the education of the children are inadequate. The State itself provided a series of photographs in which 249 The State noted that it had provided 23 individual student desks, 23 student chairs, a teacher’s desk, a teacher’s chair, and a cupboard (file of attachments to the answer to the application, tome VIII, attachment 1(6), folio 3323). 250 Cf. Report on the Indigenous Teacher Training Workshop of October 26, 2009, submitted to the General Directorate of Indigenous School Education and forwarded to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (file of attachments to the answer to the application, attachment 1.6, folios 3324 to 3328). 251 See Article 13(3)(a) of the Protocol of San Salvador in the Area of Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, which states that “primary education should be compulsory and accessible to all without cost.” 252 Cf. ILO Convention 169 on Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries, Article 27(1). 253 Cf. United Nations, Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. General Comment No. 13, December 8, 1999, E/C.12/1999/10, para. 50 49