relevant traditional territory is not that of their ancestors but that of the Community itself. 96. Expert witness Braticevic stated that the Enlhet-Enenlet family has “inhabited this area of the Chaco since time immemorial” and that no objections were raised to the determination of the ancestral territory of the Xákmok Kásek Community around the said ranch.”108 Additional support for this is to be found in the map of the EnlhetEnenlhet villages presented by the representatives, where an area called Lha’acmeCaasec is identified as one of its villages.109 97. In addition, in keeping with the history of the indigenous communities in the Paraguayan Chaco (supra paras. 56 to 63), many indigenous villages, among them the Community’s ancestors, settled around the above-mentioned religious missions and in the centers of the cattle ranches.110 In the specific case of the Xákmok Kásek Community, in 1939, a religious mission was founded in the place that gave its name to the Community (supra para. 64). Tomas Dermott stated that “the Enxet-Lengua and their encampment were there in Xákmok Kásek,” long before the arrival of the first foreign occupant (supra para. 64).111 In addition, witness Rodrigo Villagra explained that, when the Salazar Ranch was established, the private owner ordered the different indigenous villages in the area to integrate and go to live near the core of the ranch in order to have more control.112 Thus, as Tomás Dermott explained, the Sanapaná who “camped and roamed as they wished [in this area], had small farms [and] hunted,” “left their villages and went to look for work,” with some of them gathering close to the core of the ranch (supra paras. 40, 65, and 66).113 The expert opinion presented by the State endorses this version of the facts.114 98. From the time of their settlement in the core of the Salazar Ranch up until recent times (supra paras. 74 and 75), the members of the Community continued roaming this traditional territory and using its resources, with certain limitations imposed by the private owners. It was when the restrictions on mobility and traditional subsistence activities became too onerous that the members of the Community decided to leave and settle in the place known as “25 de Febrero” (supra paras. 75 to 78). 99. Furthermore, the Court observes that the area currently claimed by the Community around Retiro Primero (supra para. 68) constitutes a portion of that larger traditional territory roamed by the Community and includes sites that are important within the life, culture, and history of the Community.115 108 Expert testimony of Sergio Iván Braticevic, supra note 17, folio 4243. 109 Cf. Map Apcaoclha Chaco (“Chaco Region” in the Enlhet language) (file of attachments to the pleadings and motions brief, tome VII, attachment 15, folio 2912). 110 Testimony of Rodrigo Villagrán Carron, supra note 17. 111 Cf. Testimony of Tomás Dermott, supra note 24, folio 597. 112 Cf. Testimony of Rodrigo Villagra Carron, supra note 17. 113 Cf. Testimony of Tomás Dermott, supra note 24, folio 597. 114 Specifically, Sergio Ivan Braticevic stated that “Salazar Ranch was a centripetal place for the communities around it; although migration in search of work was a usual factor in the area.” Expert testimony of Sergio Ivan Braticevic, supra note 17, folio 4245. 115 Tomás Dermott states that in Makha Mompena (a place located within the 10,700 hectares claimed), “there were and still are many kinds of medicinal plants and plants for shamanic study. Many of the Sanapaná shamans would go there in search of these plants, consume them and, thus, learn to heal; many panaktema ‘remedies’ exist there. The Sanapanás also had many small farms in the area of Retiro 24