7 Community is the Estancia Loma Verde estate, which assertion was not challenged by the State and was even admitted by the […] Court in the ‘Proven Facts’ section of the Judgment [on the merits]. However, operative paragraph [six] orders the State to return the traditional habitat of the members of the [C]ommunity, while at the same time it seems to require that the territory at issue be ‘identified’.” Arguments of the Inter-American Commission 19. The Commission argued that: a) the first question of the representatives “does not raise doubts concerning the scope of the [J]udgment [on the merits], about which the Court has been clear in holding that it had no power to identify the territory to be transferred;” b) the representatives’ question concerns a matter of “purpose”, as they consider that the State, in fulfilling its duty to identify the territory to be transferred to the members of the Yakye Axa Community, must base itself on “the territory currently known as Estancia Loma Verde.” Thus, according to the Commision, the position asserted “involves, strictly speaking, a claim for fulfilment,” and c) the answer to the question “is not” a priori “essential”, since “from the Inter-American court findings and the assertions by the parties to the proceedings it follows that, in order to faithfully fulfill its duty to transfer the lands, the State must primarily consider the lands that correspond, among others, to Estancia Loma Verde.” However, if the Court finds that there is a controversy as to the manner in which the Judgment on the merits is to be complied with, the Commission considers “that it would be particularly useful for the Court to clear up the issue.” In such a case, “the Court’s addressing the issue raised by the aggrieved party can only be beneficial for the efficacy of its judgment.” Arguments of the State 20. The State argued that: a) “[i]t is not appropriate to alter the clear and express language of the [Judgment on the merits] by means of a request [...] that only seeks an interpretation. In view of the clarity of the [J]udgment [on the merits], it cannot be interpreted other way than as the [...] Court has;” b) “[i]t is not true that the State has agreed to seize the Estancia [Loma Verde];” c) “it has agreed to identify the territory of the [Yakye Axa Community], which is part of the E[nxet] ethnic group spread all over the Central Chaco[,] and to transfer for no consideration the tract of land necessary to house the