non-discrimination also occurs in situations and cases of indirect discrimination reflected in the disproportionate impact of norms, actions, policies or other measures that, even when they are or appear to be neutral, or their scope is general and undifferentiated, have negative effects on certain vulnerable groups.” 209 137. Since this case concerns the rights of indigenous communities, it is worth recalling that the constant jurisprudence of this Court, since the case of Yakye Axa v. Paraguay, has established that States must take into account the characteristics that differentiate the members of indigenous communities from the general population and that make up their cultural identity, when interpreting and applying their domestic laws and regulations. Similarly, the Court applies the aforementioned reasoning to assess the scope and content of the articles of the American Convention. 210 138. The Court has also reiterated that “it is indispensable that States grant effective protection to indigenous peoples, taking into account their specific characteristics, their economic and social conditions, as well as their situation of special vulnerability, their customary law, values, traditions and customs.” 211 139. In this case, the historical discrimination to which indigenous peoples in Guatemala have been subjected was demonstrated. Indeed, the persistence, over the years, of high rates of poverty and extreme poverty in these communities, their limited access to the formal labor markets and social security, the high illiteracy rates among their members, their precarious access to health care, telephone and electricity services, as well as the constant manifestations of discrimination against indigenous peoples in the mass media, indicate that indigenous peoples are still subjected to a situation of structural discrimination. 212 140. In view of the foregoing, the State had the obligation to “correct existing inequalities” and “promote the inclusion and participation” of these peoples. In light of this obligation and of the right of indigenous peoples to establish and use their own means of communication, the State should have taken all necessary measures to ensure their access to radio frequencies, in order to guarantee their material equality vis à vis other social groups with the financial resources to compete in auctions for the acquisition of radio frequencies. 141. Thus, the State’s regulatory power must be exercised within the framework of its obligations to respect, protect and guarantee the right to freedom of expression, in conditions of equality and without discrimination of any kind. The State must act in such a way as to Economic, Social and Cultural Rights), E/C.12/GC/20, July 2, 2009, para. 10, subparagraph b). 209 Cf. Case of Nadege Dorzema et al. v. Dominican Republic. Merits, reparations and costs. supra, para. 235, and Case of Expelled Dominicans and Haitians v. Dominican Republic. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs, supra, para. 263. The concept of indirect discrimination has also been recognized, inter alia, by the European Court of Human Rights, which has established that where a general policy or measure has disproportionately prejudicial effects on a particular group, it is not excluded that this may be regarded as discriminatory notwithstanding that it is not specifically aimed or directed at that group. Cf. ECHR, Case of Hoogendijk v. Netherlands, No. 58641/00. Judgment of January 6, 2005, p. 18. 210 Case of the Yakye Axa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay, Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 17, 2005. Series C No. 125, para. 51; Case of the Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of March 29, 2006. Series C No. 146, paras. 59 and 60, and Case of the Kichwa Indigenous People of Sarayaku v. Ecuador, supra, para. 162. 211 Cf. Case of the Yakye Axa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay. Merits, reparations and costs, supra, para. 63, and Case of the Kuna Indigenous People of Madungandí and the Emberá Indigenous People of Bayano and their Members v. Panama. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of October 14, 2014, para. 167. 212 Systemic discrimination refers to behavior and attitudes deeply entrenched in society, often involving unchallenged or indirect discrimination against certain groups, which manifests in practices that create relative disadvantages for some groups, and privileges for other groups. These practices may appear neutral, but have a disproportionate impact on the groups who suffer discrimination. Cf. UN, CESCR. General Comment No. 20, supra, para. 12. -39-