American Convention, and that consists of the obligation to promote and protect the right of indigenous children to enjoy their own culture, their own religion, and their own language.292 262. In addition, this Court finds that, within the general obligation of the States to promote and protect cultural diversity, a special obligation can be inferred to guarantee the right to a cultural life of indigenous children.293 263. In this regard, the Court considers that the loss of traditional practices, such as male and female initiation rites and the Community’s languages, as well as the harm arising from the lack of territory, particularly affect the cultural identity and development of the children of the Community, who will not be able to develop that special relationship with their traditional territory and that particular way of life unique to their culture if the necessary measures are not implemented to guarantee the enjoyment of these rights. 264. Based on the above, the Court finds that the State has not adopted the necessary measures of protection for all the children of the Community, in violation of the right established in Article 19 of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof. XI OBLIGATION TO RESPECT AND GUARANTEE RIGHTS WITHOUT DISCRIMINATION (ARTICLE 1(1) OF THE AMERICAN CONVENTION) 265. The Commission argued that “this case illustrates the persistence of structural discrimination factors in Paraguayan law with regard to the protection of [the indigenous peoples’] right to the ownership of their ancestral territory and the resources found there.” It added that, “even though the Paraguayan State has revealed the general progress of its laws towards recognizing the rights of the indigenous peoples as evidence of compliance with its obligations under Article 2 of the Convention […], it should be stressed that legal provisions persist in civil, agrarian and administrative law that were applied in this case and that result in the discriminatory functioning of the State system, because they give preference to the protection of the right to ‘rationally productive’ private property over the protection of the territorial rights of an indigenous population.” 266. The representatives indicated that “a policy of discrimination [exists] that leads to an easily-observable systematic pattern, which also enjoys a high degree of consensus in Paraguay, and which is leading rapidly to the extreme deterioration of the living conditions of the indigenous communities in general, and in this [specific] case […] of the Xákmok Kásek [Community].” “The Community has had to survive in a context […] in which the indigenous peoples were treated as objects without voice or opinion.” “The State has not taken specific measures […] designed to eradicate discrimination against the indigenous peoples, even though it has signed the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (domestic Law 2128/03).” They added that “the supposed factual and legal impossibility [of granting title to the land,] mentioned by the State of Paraguay, is nothing more than the deliberate application of a racist and discriminatory policy […], It is an ingrained situation that has not changed substantively even today, a fact revealed by the Government’s positions in this case.” 292 Cf. Case of Chitay Nech et al. v. Guatemala, supra note 8, para. 167. 293 Cf. Case of Chitay Nech et al. v. Guatemala, supra note 8, para. 168. 61