Community was not informed of the plans to declare part of the Salazar Ranch a private nature reserve, and that the said declaration prejudiced the way of life of the members of the Community (supra paras. 80 to 82). 159. Also, according to the evidence provided by the State itself, the action on unconstitutionality filed by the Community has been halted since October 24, 2008, when “the time limit that the Prosecutor General had to respond to the notification of this action [was suspended …], this being the last activity in the procedure.”180 160. Moreover, the Court notes that this time limit was suspended owing to the need to add the administrative case file on the Community’s land claim, which the representatives forwarded to the Supreme Court on December 14, 2009181 (supra para. 84). However, despite this and the favorable ruling on the partial appeal against the respective decree of the Legal Department of the Environmental Secretariat (supra para. 81), the unconstitutionality proceeding remains suspended.182 161. The Court considers that the passage of more than two years since the filing of the remedy of unconstitutionality with regard to a decree that has been in force for five years reveals that the State authorities have not proceeded with sufficient diligence, taking into account, also, that the State’s technical agencies have recommended that the said declaration of a nature reserve should be annulled, because “it ignored the existence of the indigenous peoples’ claim” and “jeopardized their right to communal property and their traditional habitat recognized [in the] Constitution.”183 In addition, with regard to the issue of this decree, the INDI President stated that, “[u]nfortunately, the institutions always acted as watertight compartments,” and that “the INDI, which is the institution in charge of implementing the public policy on the indigenous peoples, should have distributed this background information so that the other ministries [of the social cabinet] [would] have been informed of the indigenous peoples’ claims.”184 162. Based on the above, the Court finds that the action on unconstitutionality filed in this case has not provided an effective remedy to the members of the Community for the protection of their right to ownership of their communal lands. 2.4 Alleged failure to file legal remedies 163. The State argued that the representatives had not used the appropriate remedies under domestic law, because, in cases such as this one, it is the courts that must “determine who has [the] most right,” between those who invoke the right to ancestral property and those who have title and possession and, at the same time, are exploiting the land productively.” 164. The representatives indicated that “the mechanisms described by the State correspond to procedures for acquiring land, and not for the restitution of indigenous territory.” Moreover, regarding the possibility of resorting to the courts to contest an administrative decision, they indicated that this “assumed the existence of an administrative decision that could be challenged,” which was not the case of the 180 Cf. Note S.J.I No. 211 of May 21, 2010, supra note 99, folio 4593. 181 Cf. Brief of the representatives of December 14, 2009, addressed to the Constitutional Chamber, supra note 98, folio 3435. 182 Cf. Note S.J. I No. 211 of May 21, 2010, supra note 99, folio 4593. 183 Cf. Report of December 24, 2009, of the Legal Department of the Secretariat of the Environment, supra note 90, folios 3383 and 3385. 184 Cf. Testimony of Lida Acuña, supra note 17. 38