24 additional evidence was needed “to facilitate adjudication of the case” (the probatio diabolica) and the alleged absence of (additional) evidence will never be understood (as the majority of the Court wrongly found in the case of the Indigenous Community Yakye Axa) as proving the international responsibility of the State for the death of some members of the Indigenous Community Yakye Axa not to have arisen. In their endeavors to decide hastily such case (and others), the majority of the Court set aside the Tribunal’s own case law, both on the point of substantive law —regarding the fundamental and inderogable right to life— and on the point related to the law of evidence. 68. Fortunately, nine months after such a regrettable mistake, the majority of the Court rectified their position in the instant Judgment in the case of the Sawhoyamaxa Community, and returned to the more enlightened case law of the Tribunal. But the fact remains that the next of kin to the demised members of the Indigenous Community Yakye Axa did no obtain full justice before this InterAmerican paramount juurisdiction, while those belonging to the Sawhoyamaxa Community did. 69. It would be worthless, to avoid admitting such a noticeable mistake, to try and suggest that both cases are not "similar" or "identical.” It would be but an unacceptable piece of sohistry. It is plainly apparent as undeniable evidence, that both in the case of the Indigenous Community Yakye Axa and in that of the Sawhoyamaxa Community, the breaches of the Inter-American Convention are the same; the evidence is the same; the expert (Mr. P. Balmaceda-Rodríguez)92 is the same ; those victimized in both Communities belong to the same Indigenous People and come from the same sub-group of ancestors (Enxet-Lengua)93 (Chanawatsam)94; the infra-human conditions of survival in want are the same for the members of both Communities; the allegations by the State (regarding the alleged provision of foodstuffs and medical care) are, in the cases concerning the two Communities, the same95; the representatives of the victims in both cases are96 the same97; the executive order regarding the emergency of both communities (expressly mentioned jointly in such executive order) is the same; the Department (Presidente Hayes) where both Communities are located is the same; and even the road (from Pozo Colorado to Concepción), on the side of which the members of both Communities are still surviving in conditions of chronic poverty98, is the same. 70. In fact, the only things that are not the same are, surprinsingly enough, the diverging criteria established by the majority of the Court in the two cases, to weigh the evidence determining the international responsibility of the State for the breach 92 . 93 . Cf. paragraph 34(h) of the instant Judgment. Cf., for example, paragraph 115(f) of the instant Judgment. 94 . And two families who were members of the Indigenous Community Yakye Axa joined the Sawhoyamaxa Community. 95 . 96 Cf., for example, el paragraph 57 of the instant Judgment. . Axa. Except CEJIL, that only participated in the adjudicatory Case of the Indigenous Community Yakye 97 . The members of the non-governmental organization Tierraviva. 98 . Distant 43 km from one another.