86 obtaining food and clean water.206 168. In the previous chapter, this Court established that the State did not guarantee the right of the members of the Yakye Axa Community to communal property. The Court deems that this fact has had a negative effect on the right of the members of the Community to a decent life, because it has deprived them of the possibility of access to their traditional means of subsistence, as well as to use and enjoyment of the natural resources necessary to obtain clean water and to practice traditional medicine to prevent and cure illnesses. Furthermore, the State has not taken the necessary positive measures to ensure that the members of the Yakye Axa Community, during the period in which they have been without territory, have living conditions that are compatible with their dignity, despite the fact that on June 23, 1999 the President of Paraguay issued Decree No. 3.789 that declared a state of emergency in the Community (supra para. 50.100). 169. The Court recognizes and appreciates the initiatives taken by Paraguay to provide food, medical-sanitary care and educational materials to the members of the Yakye Axa Community (supra paras. 50.100 to 50.105); however, it deems that said measures have not been sufficient or appropriate to correct their situation of vulnerability, given the special gravity of the instant case. 170. On the other hand, the State has argued that the members of the Yakye Axa Community are alongside the road due to “a decision of their own or induced” by their representatives and that cannot be attributed to the State, because it has, rather, offered alternative solutions for resettlement where it would be possible to provide some form of medical and sanitary care for the benefit of members of the Community, while a solution is found to their land claim. 171. This Court has deemed it proven that an important part of the Yakye Axa Community voluntarily left their former settlement on “El Estribo” estate in 1996, with the aim of recovering the lands that they consider their own, from which they had left in 1986 (supra paras. 50.13 and 50.92 ). In face of the prohibition to enter the territory they claim, the members of the Community decided to settle alongside a national road, facing that land, as part of the struggle to claim their territory. While the State has offered to temporarily relocate them on other lands, these offers have been turned down because, according to the members of the Community, they were not duly consulted, bearing in mind the significance for them of remaining on those lands, or because there could be conflicts with other indigenous communities (supra paras. 39.a and 50.61). 172. The Court must highlight the special gravity of the situation of the children and the elderly members of the Yakye Axa Community. The Court has established, in previous cases, that regarding the right to life of children, the State has, in addition to the obligations regarding all persons, the additional obligation of fostering the protection measures mentioned in Article 19 of the American Convention. On the one hand, it must play the role of guarantor with greater care and responsibility, and it must take special measures based on the principle of the best interests of the child.207 In the instant case, the State has the obligation, inter alia, of providing for 206 See U.N. Doc. E/C.12/1999/5. The right to adequate food (Art. 11), (20th session, 1999), para. 13, and U.N. Doc. HRI/GEN/1/Rev.7 at 117. The right to water (Articles 11 and 12 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights), (29th session 2002), para. 16. 207 See Case of the “Juvenile Reeducation Institute”, supra note 200, para. 160; Case of the Gómez Paquiyauri brothers, supra note 192, paras. 124, 163-164, and 171; Case of Bulacio, supra note 10,