entire demarcation process carried out and permit the return of some non-indigenous who were already removed from the area. According to the petitioners, that case is also awaiting a final judgment. 18. Concerning requirements for admissibility, especially as regards the prior exhaustion of domestic remedies, the petitioners cite the unwarranted delay in the proceedings of the domestic jurisdiction, because the demarcation process has been going on for more than 19 years since it began in 1989, without accomplishing the proper registration of the indigenous lands and removal of all the nonindigenous from the territory. The alleged delay in the domestic proceedings is said to be caused by the government, which failed to carry out its duty to ensure the effective guarantee of and respect for the Xucuru indigenous people’s land rights. The petitioners therefore consider the exception provided in Article 46.2.c. of the American Convention would be applicable. They also allege that the legislation that should protect the rights of the indigenous peoples does not have effective judicial remedies accessible to them, and that therefore there should be no debate about exhaustion of domestic remedies, because the demarcation process is an administrative one that only permits administrative and judicial challenges by interested third parties, not by the indigenous themselves. In conclusion on this point, the petitioners submit that the exception set forth in Article 46.2.b of the American Convention is also applicable. They add that the petition was submitted within a reasonable period and the subject is not pending in any other international proceeding for settlement. 19. Based on the foregoing considerations, the petitioners argue that the State has violated the right to simple, prompt, and effective recourse (Article 25), with due guarantees and within a reasonable time (Article 8), because of the unreasonable delay in the demarcation process; and the right to communal property of the Xucuru indigenous people for their ancestral lands (Article 21), in connection with Articles 1.1 and 2, all of the American Convention. B. Position of the State 20. The State alleges that the petition is inadmissible based on Article 46.1.a of the American Convention. It believes that the requirement of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies has not been met, and that the exception claimed by the petitioners concerning unwarranted delay in the decision on the remedies is inapplicable. 7