on its own, the model established by covenant, and embodied in the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights. 26. Seen from this perspective, the increase in poverty is a result of decisions, basically of an economic and financial nature, taken by private actors and agreed to by public actors who have much more power than the States of developing countries. This is the context in which the responsibilities of the transnational corporations and multilateral agencies for violations of economic, social and cultural rights must be analyzed. Thus, the Commission on Human Rights, while recognizing that poverty threatens the fundamental right to life, has asked that the policies of the World Bank, the World Trade Organization, the International Monetary Fund, and other international organizations be examined. 27. Progress in international human rights law requires the international community to understand that poverty, particularly extreme poverty, is a way of denying all the human, civil, political, economic, and cultural rights, and act accordingly, in order to facilitate the identification of perpetrators who bear international responsibility. The system of economic growth related to a form of globalization that impoverishes growing sectors, is a “massive, flagrant, and systematic [way of] violating human rights,” in an increasingly interdependent world. In this interpretation of the right to life, which parallels the changing times and current living conditions, attention should be given to the causes of extreme poverty and to the perpetrators behind them. In this perspective, the international responsibilities of the State of Paraguay and of the other signatories of the American Convention do not cease, but they are shared with the international community which requires new instruments. IV. Dissenting opinion. Recognition of the Right to Juridical Personality 28. The Commission argued (para. 245) that the State has not implemented mechanisms that provide the members of the Community with “the identity documents required to exercise their right to recognition of juridical personality.” It indicated that, according to the 2008 census, at least 43 of the 273 members of the Community did not possess identity documents; of these, at least 32 were minors. 29. The representatives added that “the large number of Xákmok Kásek individuals who do not have documents […] prevents them from legally proving their existence and identity.” 30. In my opinion, these documentation shortcomings affected many of the communities and not only the indigenous people of Xákmok Kásek, owing to the lack of budgetary resources; however, they were alleviated by the indigenous “identity card,” issued by INDI. 31. This Institute responded to the requests of the community whenever vehicles and fuel were available. V. Dissenting discriminate opinion. Non-compliance with the obligation not to 32. The Commission argued that “this case illustrates the persistence of structural discrimination factors in the Paraguayan legal system regarding the protection of their right to the ownership of ancestral territory and the resources found on it”; 6