Yakye Axa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay, the Court reiterated its case law in this regard and indicated that: “In essence, this right includes not only the right of every human being not to be deprived arbitrarily of his life, but also the right that conditions are not created that prevent or obstruct access to a dignified existence.” 57 100. As a corollary of a dignified life or existence, the Court has emphasized that States have the obligation to ensure certain basic living conditions and to abstain from taking measures that could create conditions that would obstruct the access to a dignified existence by taking positive concrete measures to this end. In the words of the Court: “One of the obligations that the State must inescapably undertake as guarantor, to protect and ensure the right to life, is that of generating minimum living conditions that are compatible with the dignity of the human person and of not creating conditions that hinder or impede it. In this regard, the State has the duty to take positive, concrete measures geared toward fulfillment of the right to a decent life, especially in the case of persons who are vulnerable and at risk, whose care becomes a high priority.” 58 101. The relationship between the degradation of the environment and the violation of the right to a decent life, as indicated in Section 1, has long been recognized. For example, Principle 1 of the Stockholm Declaration of June 1972, adopted by the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, established that: “Man has the fundamental right to freedom, equality and adequate conditions of life, in an environment of a quality that permits a life of dignity and well-being.” 59 102. The intrinsic relationship that exists between the environment and the right to life was also recalled by the Commission in the “Report on the situation of human rights in Ecuador” as follows: “The realization of the right to life, and to physical security and integrity is necessarily related to and in some ways dependent upon one's physical environment. Accordingly, where environmental contamination and degradation pose a persistent threat to human life and health, the foregoing rights are infringed.” 60 103. As a result of the relevance of the physical environment for the exercise of the right to life, the Commission clarified that States have the obligation to take any reasonable measure to prevent cases of “serious environmental pollution” that could threaten the life and health of the 57 ICourtHR, Case of the Yakye Axa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 17, 2005. Series C No. 125, para. 161; Case of the Juvenile Re-education Institute v. Paraguay. Judgment of September 2, 2004. Series C No. 112, para. 156; Case of the Gomez Paquiyauri Brothers v. Peru. Judgment of July 8, 2004. Series C No 110, para. 128; Case of Myrna Mack Chang v. Guatemala, Judgment of November 25, 2003. Series C No. 101, para. 152, and Case of the “Street Children (Villagrán Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Judgment of November 19, 1999. Series C No. 63, para. 144. 58 ICourtHR, Case of the Yakye Axa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 17, 2005. Series C No. 125, para. 162. 59 Stockholm Declaration, United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, June 5 to 16, 1972. 60 IACHR, Report of the situation of human rights in Ecuador, OEA/Ser.L/V/11.96, Doc. 10 rev. l, April 24, 1997, Chapter VIII, 2. 60