2 limited physical conditions of the settlement. 4 No productive activities can be carried out there, and in general terms the place does not allow acceptable living conditions. 6. On December 10, 2001, pursuant to the provisions of Law 904/81, the government acknowledged the legal personality of the “Yakye Axa Community established in the Pozo Colorado district, in the Presidente Hayes Department,” 5 enabling it to take steps to obtain public or private lands. 7. In 1993, a file was opened on “El Estribo –Pozo Colorado- Yakye Axa Indigenous Community on legal registration of land, 15,000 ha.” In this file, the IBR stated that it could not request expropriation because the real estate claimed was under rational use. The owners of the aforementioned real estate refused to sell it. 8. Having exhausted the administrative steps, the Community requested that Congress expropriate the 18.189 has. Of Estancia Loma Verde; the expropriation bill was withdrawn on November 28, 2000. Subsequently, on January 30, 2002, the Executive submitted another bill to Congress to expropriate 7,901 ha of that same ranch, Estancia Loma Verde; the Senate rejected this proposal, exercising its constitutional authority. 9. Conditions in the petitioning Community’s makeshift settlement worsened its risky and vulnerable situation, as the community was without its traditional means of subsistence and there were objective difficulties for the State to provide means to protect the community against the risks faced by its members, to ensure minimum living conditions. 6 In this context, in just under six years, six indigenous members of that same settlement died. Based on its submission of the facts, the Commission argues that the State of Paraguay has not complied with its obligation to ensure the right to life set forth in Article 4 in combination with Article 1(1) of the American Convention, to the detriment of the Yakye Axa Indigenous Community. 7 In its reply to the application, the State of Paraguay rejects the aforementioned accusation, and it acquiesces to the proposal by the representatives of the alleged victims to resort to an expert opinion regarding the causes of those deaths, and it states that the claim has not been made under the domestic judicial system. 8 10. With regard to the legal grounds, we must take into account that the InterAmerican Court, exercising its adjudicatory jurisdiction, must interpret the provisions of the American Convention, pursuant to the provisions of the Convention as well as 4 Under domestic law, investment of public funds to build sanitary infrastructure alongside the public road. 5 Articles 8, 9 and 16 of Law 904/81. 6 Application by the Commission, para. 178. The protective factors include medical services, establishment of physical conditions for production of their own food, educational services, etc. According to domestic law, use of public funds to build a drinking water system or other infrastructure alongside a public road and its public domain area constitutes the crime of misappropriation. 7 Application by the Commission, para. 192. 8 Reply to the application para. 166 to 170, 189.