77 140. Lastly, with regard to the third argument put forth by the State, the Court has not been furnished with the aforementioned treaty between Germany and Paraguay, but, according to the State, said convention allows for capital investments made by a contracting party to be condemned or nationalized for a “public purpose or interest”, which could justifiy land restitution to indigenous people. Moreover, the Court considers that the enforcement of bilateral commercial treaties negates vindication of non-compliance with state obligations under the American Convention; on the contrary, their enforcement should always be compatible with the American Convention, which is a multilateral treaty on human rights that stands in a class of its own and that generates rights for individual human beings and does not depend entirely on reciprocity among States.201 141. Based on the foregoing, the Court dismisses the three arguments of the State described above and finds them insufficient to justify non-enforcement of the right to property of the Sawhoyamaxa Community. * 142. Finally, it is worth recalling that, under Article 1(1) of the Convention, the State is under the obligation to respect the rights recognized therein and to organize public authority in such a way as to ensure to all persons under its jurisdiction the free and full exercise of human rights.202 143. Even though the right to communal property of the lands and of the natural resources of indigenous people is recognized in Paraguayan laws, such merely abstract or legal recognition becomes meaningless in practice if the lands have not been physically delimited and surrendered because the adequate domestic measures necessary to secure effective use and enjoyment of said right by the members of the Sawhoyamaxa Community are lacking. The free development and transmission of their culture and traditional rites have thus been threatened. 144. For the aforementioned reasons, the Court concludes that the State violated Article 21 of the American Convention, to the detriment of the members of the Sawhoyamaxa Community, in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 therein. X. VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 4 OF THE AMERICAN CONVENTION (RIGHT TO LIFE) AS REGARDS TO ARTICLES 19 AND 1(1) THEROF Arguments by the Commission 145. As regards to Article 4 of the Convention, in connection with Article 1(1) thereof, the Commission alleged the following: 201 Cf. The Effect of Reservations on the Entry into Force of the American Convention on Human Rights (Arts. 74 and 75). Advisory Opinion OC-2/82 of September 24, 1982. Series A No. 2, para. 29. 202 Cf. Case of the Yakye Axa Comunidad Indigenous Community, supra note 1, para. 153; Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez. Judgment of June 7, 2003. Series C No. 99, para. 142, y Case of Ivcher Bronstein, supra note 189, para. 168.