CCPR/C/132/D/2552/2015 5. First, as detailed by the authors and claimed before the domestic authorities, their health was critically affected by the extensive use of pesticides by extractive industries and the failure of the State to prevent the degradation of their health (paras. 2.8–2.10 of the Views). As was done in Portillo Cáceres et al. v. Paraguay, this should have been examined under article 6 of the Covenant. The argument that the current case is different is not relevant insofar as article 6 may be applicable even in absence of death. 6. Second, large-scale contamination not only destroys biodiversity, but also the natural resources that are not only a source of food but also the origin of ancestral cultural practices related to hunting, fishing, woodland foraging and Guaraní agroecology. The situation of extreme poverty in which the community lives, without electricity, drinking water, sanitation services or a health-care facility, is worsened by the destruction of its natural resources (para. 2.8 of the Views). 7. Some of these claims were presented by the authors and examined under article 27 of the Covenant, which is an important step. Nevertheless, we consider that the serious consequences of the massive use of pesticides are imperfectly covered by this provision. To quote the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, the task of the Committee should have been to assess whether the State authorities’ inaction and failures: Generated conditions that worsened the difficulties of access to a decent life for the members of the … community and whether, in that context, it took appropriate positive measures to fulfil that obligation, taking into account the especially vulnerable situation in which they were placed, given their different manner of life (different worldview systems than those of Western culture, including their close relationship with the land) and their life aspirations, both individual and collective.10 8. Considering the facts presented by the authors, which have not been convincingly refuted by the State, there is no doubt that the outcome of this assessment would have led to a violation of article 6 of the Covenant. 10 GE.22-15010 Yakye Axa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay, para. 163. 17