their situation of severe deprivations, these indigenous communities lack strategies to enable them to adequately address the risks to which they are exposed in a way that would allow them to take advantage of opportunities to improve their living conditions and achieve the minimum conditions for a decent life. 21. The right to life is established in different instruments and, under them, the existence of extreme poverty, which is increasing in Paraguay, means the denial of economic, social, and cultural rights, including the rights to adequate nutrition, health, food, and work. The United Nations Commission on Human Rights recognized that extreme poverty threatens the fundamental right to life, and determined which human rights are essential for the protection of life (food, potable water, health). For its part, the World Conference on Human Rights, held in Vienna in 1993, considered that extreme poverty constitutes a threat to human dignity, as has been noted in previous judgments. In the case of the indigenous communities, particularly those affected by extreme poverty, that situation involves the systematic denial of the possibility of enjoying the inherent rights of the human being. The Xákmok Kásek Community is certainly affected by extreme poverty, as revealed by the testimony of witnesses and expert witnesses. 22. The State’s interventions must prevent, mitigate and overcome the risks, such as malnutrition, the prevalence of anemia, morbidity, and mortality, creating the minimum conditions with regard to health care, adequate nutrition, education, job training, and income generation. In the case of the Paraguayan State, although it attends to the entire vulnerable population, it does not do so more adequately owing to its limited resources. 23. The State's obligation to take positive measures to protect the right to life, even though it includes providing services to vulnerable groups affected by extreme poverty, cannot be limited to this, because, by not attacking the root causes of poverty in general, and extreme poverty in particular, this assistance is unable to create the above-mentioned conditions for a decent life. 24. In my opinion, the evolving interpretation of the right to life established in the American Convention should take into consideration the socio-economic situation of Paraguay and of most Latin American countries, characterized by the increase in extreme poverty in both absolute and relative terms, despite the implementation of social protection policies. The interpretation of the right to life does not relate only to monitoring the State’s compliance with the provision of social protection services that guarantee minimum living conditions temporarily without tackling the underlying causes of poverty, which reproduce the situation and create more poor people, as discussed within the United Nations. This implies the need to relate poverty eradication measures to all the factors that give rise to poverty, taking into account the impact of the decisions taken by States, and multinational and multilateral organizations: national and international actors and institutions are among those responsible for the reproduction of conditions of poverty. 25. In this context, the intervention capacity of the States of developing countries, including Paraguay, and the application of international norms relating to extreme poverty is not a legal issue that involves only the State, which is often conditioned both by the limited financial resources available to it and structural factors linked to the “adjustment process,” which the State of Paraguay has no control over, considered in isolation. International responsibility is not limited to the right to international assistance in the event that a State Party is unable to achieve, 5