this is not an obstacle to consider that discrimination on these grounds is prohibited by the norms of the Convention. This is so for two reasons: first, because the list contained in Article 1(1) of the Convention is not exhaustive but merely illustrative; and second, because poverty may well be understood to fall within the category of “economic status” to which the aforementioned article expressly refers; or in relation to other categories of protection, such as “social origin” or “any other social condition,” 144 based on its multidimensional nature, while disability is included in the category of “any other social condition.” 145 103. In this regard, the Court recalls that States are obliged to adopt positive measures to reverse or change any discriminatory situations existing in their societies that affect a specific group of persons. This entails the special duty of protection that the State must exercise with respect to the actions and practices of third parties who, with its tolerance or acquiescence, create, maintain or favor discriminatory situations. Furthermore, States are obliged to adopt positive measures, to be determined according to the particular protection needs of the subjects of law, whether due to their personal condition or to the specific situation in which they find themselves, such as extreme poverty or exclusion. 146 104. Thus, the Court notes that the victims in this case are members of an indigenous community who did not have access to another source of income and were forced to work as divers in underwater fishing activities in conditions of vulnerability, which exposed them to the abusive situation described in this judgment. For people living in the department of Gracias a Dios, and particularly in the region of La Mosquitia, the diving work offered to them was the main, if not the only employment option, since the area is known for its lack of job opportunities. The State acknowledged that the victims lived in a general situation of neglect, indifference and lack of a governmental presence, and that it was aware of the situation faced by Miskito indigenous people and the abuses committed by the companies involved in fishing activities in the area. In this context, the State’s failure to adopt measures aimed at changing the situations that violated the human rights of the victims who, as members of an indigenous people belong to a vulnerable group, constituted an act of discrimination. 105. In its 2019 Report on the Situation of Human Rights in Honduras, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights pointed out that “development and investment projects in [Miskito] indigenous lands and territories take place in contexts of profound marginalization and poverty.” It stated that “in the department of Gracias a Dios, 78 per cent of households are indigenous, and some 90 per cent experience multidimensional poverty. Serious gaps in the enjoyment of core human rights tend to produce undue pressure on indigenous communities, which may agree to projects in exchange for the promises made by private business companies to provide services such as health and education.” In that regard, it recommended that the government “[a]dopt a policy or plan to guide business enterprises regarding their human rights responsibilities to ensure that the private sector exercises due diligence and assesses the impact of business activities on human rights, and that remedies are in place for any human rights impact generated by such activities.” 147 144 Cf. Case of the Workers of the Fireworks Factory in Santo Antônio de Jesus v. Brazil, supra, para. 185; and Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, General Comment No. 20: Non-discrimination and Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (Article 2, para. 2 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights), a Doc. E/C.12/GC/20, July 2, 2009, paras. 15 and 27. 145 Cf. Case of Guachalá Chimbo et al. v. Ecuador, supra, para. 79. Cf. Case of the Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of March 29, 2006. Series C No. 146, para. 154, and Advisory Opinion OC-27/21, supra, para. 162. 146 Cf. United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. Report on the situation of human rights in Honduras, January 28, 2019, paras. 65, 66, and 94. 147 36