b) Toponymy of the area according to the Community 100. Regarding the area’s toponymy, the Court recalls that the traditional occupation of territory by the indigenous peoples of the Chaco is revealed, above all, by the names given to certain places within the territory, such as sites of periodic settlement, wells, lakes, woods, palm groves, spartina plantations, areas for gathering and for fishing, cemeteries, etc.116 101. In the instant case, since the Community started the process of claiming the lands, it has identified the places it uses as references of its traditional lands with names in its own language. Thus, in the original request submitted to the IBR (supra para. 67), the leaders of the Community indicated that those lands should include “the Mopae Sensap, Yagkamet Wennaktee, Naktee Sagye and Mosgamala sites, and should extend to Xakmaxapak in the south.”117 Moreover, the only anthropological report prepared at the domestic level concluded that “within the territory claimed, the indigenous peoples [had] a profound knowledge of the traditional places and their names.”118 c) Technical studies 102. With regard to the technical studies prepared in relation to the traditional character of the lands claimed, the Court observes first that, although there are very few of them, the documents prepared and the studies made at the domestic level during the land claim process have affirmed the traditional character of the lands claimed by the Community.119 Second, the expert testimony of Antonio Spiridinoff and Sergio Iván Braticevic confirms the traditional character of the lands claimed.120 d) Suitability of the lands claimed 103. Finally, regarding the suitability of the lands claimed, the anthropological report prepared by the Center for Anthropological Studies of the Universidad Católica Nuestra Señora de la Asunción (hereinafter “CEADUC”) specifically concluded that the lands claimed are appropriate and suitable for the Community’s way of life.121 104. Furthermore, in his expert testimony, Antonio Spiridinoff observed that, over and above obstructing the indigenous peoples’ claim, the technical justification used to declare the private nature reserve on Salazar Ranch validates its potential use for an Primero, and they would go there to hunt; there is a large ravine called Mompey Sensap, ‘Mariposa Blanca’ nearby. The people had farms there.” Cf. Testimony of Tomás Dermott, supra note 24, folio 595. 116 Cf. Case of the Yakye Axa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay, supra note 5, para. 50(4). 117 Cf. Request of the Community to the IBR of December 28, 1990, supra note 65, folio 780. In fact, when the Community reiterated its request in 1994, it indicated, during a conciliation hearing, that “measurements [should be made] to determine the exact site of the Community’s claim [because] the sites claimed are only known by the traditional name[s] used by the indigenous peoples.” Cf. Minutes No. 7 of the hearing held between the parties on February 11, 1994 (file of appendices to the application, appendix 3, tome 3, folios 905 to 908). 118 Cf. CEADUC Anthropological Report, supra note 55, folio 740. 119 Cf. CEADUC Anthropological Report, supra note 55, folio 747; Report No. 2476 of the Head of Indigenous Affairs of the IBR of November 5, 1991 (file of appendices to the application, appendix 3, tome II, folio 864), and memorandum of the INDI President of August 22, 1995 (file of appendices to the application, appendix 3, tome II, folios 859 and 860). 120 Cf. Expert testimony of Sergio Iván Braticevic, supra note 17, folio 4235 to 4252, and expert testimony of Antonio Spiridinoff, supra note 68, folios 613 to 616. 121 Cf. CEADUC Anthropological Report, supra note 55, folio 1736. 25