applicable laws are those relating to the settlement of indigenous communities on privately-owned land.171 144. The Court recalls that, in the cases of the Yakye Axa and the Sawhoyamaxa indigenous communities, it considered that the domestic administrative proceedings to reclaim traditional lands were ineffective,172 because they did not offer a real possibility for the members of the indigenous communities to recover their traditional lands if the latter were privately-owned. 145. Since the instant case relates to the same remedy, because the State has not amended either the law or its practice in this regard,173 the Court reiterates its case law that the administrative procedure in question has the following structural problems that prevent it from being considered effective: (a) limited powers to expropriate; (b) administrative proceedings subject to the existence of a voluntary agreement between the parties, and (c) absence of technical and scientific procedures designed to find a definitive solution to the problem. a) Limited powers to expropriate 146. First, the reference to the Agrarian Statute limits the possibilities of expropriating land claimed by indigenous communities to those cases involving land that is not being exploited rationally,174 without considering particular aspects of the indigenous peoples, such as the special meaning that the land has for them.175 As witness Rodrigo Villagra indicated, “after 100 years of colonization, these lands are going to be exploited in some way.” The Court recalls that the argument that the indigenous peoples cannot, under any circumstances, reclaim their traditional land when it is being exploited and in full production, considers the indigenous question exclusively from the perspective of the productivity of the land and the agrarian regime, which is inadequate for the unique characteristics of these peoples.176 147. Despite the fact that the consideration in the preceding paragraph has already been established in previous cases against Paraguay, in this case the State argued once again that it “has not been able to satisfy fully” the right to communal property, because the land claimed belongs to private owners, and is being exploited rationally, so that the State is prevented from realizing the right to property of the members of the Community. 148. In this regard, the Inter-American Commission argued that the abovementioned factual and legal impossibility that the State invokes in its defense is not an argument that relieves it of its international responsibility. The representatives added 171 Cf. Articles 22, 24, 25, and 26 of Law No. 904/81 Indigenous Communities Statute, supra note 64, folios 2405 to 2406. 172 Cf. Case of the Yakye Axa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay, supra note 5, para. 98, and Case of the Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay, supra note 20, para. 108. 173 Cf. Testimony of Rodrigo Villagra Carron, supra note 17. 174 Cf. Article 94 of Law No. 1.863/02, Agrarian Statute (file of appendices to the application, attachment 7, folio 2472). 175 According to the State, in order to carry out the expropriation, it is essential to comply with all the legal requirements; in other words, it must relate to a large estate that is not being exploited, or the expropriation is being carried out for reasons of social interest. “The national agrarian legislation in force takes into consideration the profitable use of the land, as well as the productivity achieved by the landowner in order to determine whether or not it can be expropriated.” (Cf. Answer to the application, folios 386 and 399). 176 Cf. Case of the Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay, supra note 20, para. 139. 35