84 [e]very person has the right to have his life respected. This right shall be protected by law and, in general, from the moment of conception. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life. 161. This Court has asserted that the right to life is crucial in the American Convention, for which reason realization of the other rights depends on protection of this one.200 When the right to life is not respected, all the other rights disappear, because the person entitled to them ceases to exist.201 Due to the basic nature of this right, approaches that restrict the right to life are not admissible. Essentially, this right includes not only the right of every human being not to be arbitrarily deprived of his life, but also the right that conditions that impede or obstruct access to a decent existence should not be generated.202 162. One of the obligations that the State must inescapably undertake as guarantor, to protect and ensure the right to life, is that of generating minimum living conditions that are compatible with the dignity of the human person203 and of not creating conditions that hinder or impede it. In this regard, the State has the duty to take positive, concrete measures geared toward fulfillment of the right to a decent life, especially in the case of persons who are vulnerable and at risk, whose care becomes a high priority. 163. In the instant case, the Court must establish whether the State generated conditions that worsened the difficulties of access to a decent life for the members of the Yakye Axa Community and whether, in that context, it took appropriate positive measures to fulfill that obligation, taking into account the especially vulnerable situation in which they were placed, given their different manner of life (different worldview systems than those of Western culture, including their close relationship with the land) and their life aspirations, both individual and collective, in light of the existing international corpus juris regarding the special protection required by the members of the indigenous communities, in view of the provisions set forth in Article 4 of the Convention, in combination with the general duty to respect rights, embodied in Article 1(1) and with the duty of progressive development set forth in Article 26 of that same Convention, and with Articles 10 (Right to Health); 11 (Right to a Healthy Environment); 12 (Right to Food); 13 (Right to Education) and 14 (Right to the Benefits of Culture) of the Additional Protocol to the American Convention, regarding economic, social, and cultural rights,204 and the pertinent 200 See Case of the “Juvenile Reeducation Institute”. Judgment of September 2, 2004. Series C No. 112, para. 156; Case of the Gómez Paquiyauri brothers, supra note 192, para. 128; Case of Myrna Mack Chang, supra note 10, para. 152, and Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.), supra note 182, para. 144. 201 See Case of the “Juvenile Reeducation Institute”, supra note 200, para. 156; Case of the Gómez Paquiyauri brothers, supra note 192, para. 128; Case of Myrna Mack Chang, supra note 10, para. 152, and Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.), supra note 182, para. 144. 202 See Case of the “Juvenile Reeducation Institute”, supra note 200, para. 156; Case of the Gómez Paquiyauri brothers, supra note 192, para. 128; Case of Myrna Mack Chang, supra note 10, para. 152, and Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.), supra note 182, para. 144. 203 204 See Case of the “Juvenile Reeducation Institute”, supra note 200, para. 159. Paraguay ratified the Additional Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights regarding Economic, Social and Cultural Rights on June 3, 1997. The Protocol entered into force internationally on November 16, 1999.