153. The third problem observed in the domestic administrative action is the absence of technical and scientific procedures that make a significant contribution to a final solution to the problem. Despite the fact that Paraguayan laws require the INDERT and the INDI to submit definitive solutions to the requests it receives,178 during the more than 20 years that this action has extended, the only technical activities carried out by the administrative authorities were two on-site inspections and an anthropological report, which concluded that the land claimed by the Community formed part of its traditional territory and was suitable for settlement (supra para. 103). However, apparently this study was insufficient, as revealed by the simple fact that, as of today, the dispute over the Xákmok Kásek’s communal property persists. In addition, no other procedure designed to verify the suitability of other lands within the traditional territory was every carried out. * * * 154. The Court reiterates that the administrative action to reclaim the lands has been ineffective and has not revealed any real possibility for the members of the Xákmok Kásek community to recover their traditional lands. In addition, this lack of an effective remedy for the recovery of indigenous land represents the State’s failure to comply with its obligation, established in Article 2 of the Convention, to adapt its domestic law to guarantee in the practice the right to communal property. 2.3. Regarding the decree declaring part of the area claimed a protected wooded area 155. The representatives argued that, if a consultation mechanism had existed for the declaration of the private nature reserve, “the rights of the Xákmok Kásek Community would have been ensured, [because] it would have permitted a discussion of the private project.” They also stressed that, almost two years after the filing of the action on unconstitutionality against the decree ordering the creation of the protected wooded area on land claimed by the Community (supra para. 83 and 84), the State had not “achieved definitive results in the matter.” 156. The State indicated that it had filed a request to annul the declaration on the nature reserve and, to this end, had presented the report of the Environmental Secretariat recommending its annulment (supra para. 81). 157. In this regard, the Court finds that, in order to guarantee the right to property of the indigenous peoples, under Article 1(1) of the Convention the State must ensure the effective participation of the members of the Community, in accordance with their customs and traditions, in any plan or decision that could affect their traditional lands and restrict the use and enjoyment of these lands, to ensure that such plans or decision do not negate their survival as indigenous people.179 This is in keeping with the provisions of ILO Convention 169, to which Paraguay is a State party. 158. In the instant case, it has been duly proved that the indigenous peoples’ claim to lands declared a nature reserve was not taken into account when Decree No. 11,804 was issued and the technical justification for this decision was approved; that the 178 Article 4 of Law No. 43/89. This article amends the provisions of Law No. 1,372/88; “which establishes a regime for regulating the settlements of the indigenous communities,” of December 21, 1989 (file of appendices to the application, appendix 2, tome 1, folio 252). 179 Cf. mutatis mutandis, Case of the Saramaka People v. Suriname, supra note 16, para. 129. 37