3 form a “Sanitary Registry.” The newborn died a month later. Belén Galarza, the mother of Arnaldo and Fátima Galarza had a post-delivery haemorrhage that extended for over fifteen days, for which reason she was admitted to hospital together with Arnaldo and Fátima, who had “a malnutrition condition,” since they had not had any intake “for at least a week.” Arnaldo could never recover his strength and died. Fátima, though showing a certain improvement, died a month after her brother. 10. The reason or reasons to determine the international responsibility of the State in the Case of Sawhoyamaxa Community are explicitly indicated by the Court itself in the Villagrán-Morales et al. v. Guatemala (Case of the “Street Children” Judgment on the Merits of November 19, 1999, para. 144), cited in the joint opinion which I pronounced with Judge Cançado Trindade in the Case of Indigenous Community Yakye Axa v. Paraguay, and which I transcribe hereinbelow: The right to life is a fundamental human right, and the exercise of this right is essential for the exercise of all other human rights. If it is not respected, all rights lack meaning. Owing to the fundamental nature of the right to life, restrictive approaches to it are inadmissible. In essence, the fundamental right to life includes, not only the right of every human being not to be deprived of his life arbitrarily, but also the right that he will not be prevented from having access to the conditions that guarantee a dignified existence. States have the obligation to guarantee the creation of the conditions required in order that violations of this basic right do not occur, in particular, the duty to prevent its agents from violating it. 11. Such interpretation of the right to life, enshrined in Article 4 of the American Convention, which the Court advanced in the famous case of the “Street Children”, was not restrictive, as it was in the case of Yakye Axa. The right to life should never be accorded restrictive interpretations since, as asserted by the Court in other cases, 1 it is the basic and fundamental right, without which all other rights protected under the American Convention may not be exercised. The failure by the State to adopt positive measures in order to ensure the life of the members of the Sawhoyamaxa Community generates, in my opinion, a violation of Articles 4(1) and 1(1) of the Convention. In other words, the State’s lack of due diligence to prevent the problems of shortage of land, water, food and medicines, as well as the insufficient or nonexistent health care, which resulted the deaths, generates in the instant case the international responsibility of the State, and hence the deaths of the members of the Sawhoyamaxa Community can be attributed to it. 12. The expert report prepared by Dr. Pablo Balmaceda, which was submitted to this Court by means of a statement rendered before a public official whose acts command full faith and credit (affidavit), speaks for itself: To start with, we must clarify that the [C]ommunity has no source of drinking water. The most reliable source of water may be the rainwater they gather, but it is always very scarce because of inadequate storage facilities. The main source of water are the small earth dams located inside the wire-fenced lands that they claim for their own, so the members of the community have to enter private property to be able to get the vital liquid. These small earth dams are exposed to contact with animals and their water is used both for human consumption and for personal hygiene. Rainwater washes all kinds of 1 Cf. Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre. Judgment of January 31, 20.06. Series C No. 140, para. 120; Case of 19 Merchants. Judgment of July 5, 2006. Series C No. 109, para. 153; Case of Myrna MackChang, Judgment of November 25, 2003, Series C No. 101, para. 152; Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez. Judgment of June 7, 2003. Series C No. 99, para. 110, and Case of the “Street Children” (VillagránMorales et al.). Judgment of November 19, 1999. Series C No. 63, para. 144.