81 conditions that may guarantee a decent life,211 which entails the adoption of positive measures to prevent the breach of such right. 154. The Court has determined that, within the framework of the American Convention, the international responsibility of States arises at the moment of the violation of the general obligations embodied in Articles 1(1) and 2 of such treaty.212 From these general obligations special duties are derived that can be determined according to the particular needs of protection of the legal persons, whether due to their personal conditions or because of the specific situation they have to face,213 such as extreme poverty, exclusion or childhood. 155. It is clear for the Court that a State cannot be responsible for all situations in which the right to life is at risk. Taking into account the difficulties involved in the planning and adoption of public policies and the operative choices that have to be made in view of the priorities and the resources available, the positive obligations of the State must be interpreted so that an impossible or disproportionate burden is not imposed upon the authorities.214 In order for this positive obligation to arise, it must be determined that at the moment of the occurrence of the events, the authorities knew or should have known about the existence of a situation posing an immediate and certain risk to the life of an individual or of a group of individuals, and that the necessary measures were not adopted within the scope of their authority which could be reasonably expected to prevent or avoid such risk.215 ii) application of such principles to the instant case 156. In the instant case, there is no dispute between the parties regarding the fact that the conditions in which the members of the Sawhoyamaxa Community live are inadequate to lead a decent existence, nor regarding the fact that such conditions represent an actual and impending risk for their lives. The dispute lies regarding the determination of the State’s responsibility for the conditions in which the alleged victims are, and regarding whether the State has adopted any necessary measures within the scope of its authority which could be reasonably expected to prevent or avoid the risk to the right to life of the alleged victims. 211 Cf. Case of Indigenous Community of Yakye Axa, supra note 1, para. 161; the “Street Children” Case (Villagrán Morales et al,) supra note 203, para. 144, y Case of the “Juvenile Reeducation Institute” Judgment of September 2, 2004. Series C No. 112, para. 156. 212 Cf. Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre, supra note 3, para. 111; Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre”, supra note 9, para. 111, and Juridical Condition and Rights of the Undocumented Migrants. Advisory Opinion AO-18/03, of September 17, 2003. Series A No. 18, para. 140. 213 Cf. Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre, supra note 3, 111 and 112; Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre”, supra note 3, paras. 108 and 110, and Case of the Gómez-Paquiyauri Brothers. Judgment of July 8, 2004. Series C No. 110, para. 71. 214 Cf. Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre, supra note 3, para. 124, and Kiliç v. Turkey (2000) III, EurCourt HR, 63. 215 Cf. Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre, supra note 3, paras. 123 and 124, see also Kiliç v. Turkey (2000) III, EurCourt HR, 63, Öneryildiz v. Turkey, application no. 48939/99, EurCourt HR [gc], Judgment 30 November 2004, 93, and Osman v. the United Kingdom (1998) VIII, 116.