43. Consequently, this Court considers that the multi-ethnic composition of the Community is a proven fact, and the State knew or should have known this previously. The different references to the Community as belonging to the Enxet people or as descendants of the Sanapaná people respond to historical reasons or circumstances,29 so that the State’s argument is an insufficient reason to suspend this case. 2.2. Name of the Community 44. Regarding the name of the Community, the evidence submitted indicates that, in November 1986, the Paraguayan Indigenous Peoples’ Institute (hereinafter the “INDI”) recognized the “leaders of the Sanapaná Indigenous Community, settled in the place known as Zalazar.”30 Subsequently, in November of 1987, the President of Paraguay granted legal standing to the Zglamo Kacet Community, recognizing that it “belonged to the Maskoy ethnic group.”31 This name was a translation of the version used nowadays, Xákmok Kásek, with a different spelling.32 Finally, in April of 1994, the INDI recognized the current leaders of the Community as leaders of “the ‘Zalazar’ indigenous community, belonging to the Sanapaná ethnic group,” and expressly annulled the previous recognition of the leaders.33 45. In this regard, the Court observes that, in order to formalize the public deed corresponding to the lands currently occupied by the members of the Community (infra para. 77), the Government Notary required “the rectification of the Community’s legal representation,” which “must be arranged by the interested parties.”34 However, the Court notes that, contrary to the State’s allegation, the rectification required by the said Notary refers to the name of the Community because, in the resolution recognizing current leaders (supra note 30) the Community was called “Zalazar” and not Xákmok Kásek. Hence, the note that the Government Notary sent to the INDI indicated that the recognition of leaders “should correspond to those who represent the actual Community, with the name currently in effect.” Consequently, the INDI was required to submit “the resolution corresponding to the recognition of the [actual] leaders of the Xákmok Kásek Indigenous Community.” In addition, owing to the different spelling in the decree that recognized the legal status of the Community 29 Witnesses presented by both the State and the representatives indicated that the anthropologist, Stephen Kidd, was an authority on the study of the Enxet; he had explained that “[w]ithin the linguistic family of the Maskoy, the Sanapaná, and Angaité, they also refer to themselves as Enxet.” Kidd, Stephen: “Amor and odio entre la gente sin cosas,” 1999 (file of attachments to the pleadings and motions brief, tome VII, attachment 16, folio 3124). Moreover, the representatives added that “when the Anglican missionaries were the only people coming to these lands, it was common that the different ethnic groups would identify themselves merely as Enlhet-Enenlhet or Enxet[,] according to the spelling chosen, which translates as ‘person, people,’ and they gave the neighboring peoples who were different from them a more specific name.” Cf. Brief with final written arguments of the representatives (merits file, tome III, folio 1056). 30 Cf. Order No. 44/86 issued by the INDI on November 4, 1986 (file of appendices to the application, appendix 3, tome II, folio 782). 31 Cf. Decree No. 25.297 of the President of the Republic of November 4, 1987 (file of appendices to the application, appendix 3, tome II, folio 786). 32 Cf. Expert testimony of Sergio Iván Braticevic, supra note 17, folio 4242. 33 Cf. Resolution P.C. No. 30/94 issued by the INDI on April 25, 1994 (file of appendices to the application, appendix 3, tome IV, folio 1695). 34 Cf. Certification of April 6, 2010, issued by the Government Notary of Paraguay (file of attachments to the State’s final arguments, tome X, folio 4207). 12