settlement, it did not indicate the characteristics or qualities that would meet the quality required for the sustainability of the Xákmok Kásek.141 118. It is not enough that other properties are available. As the State’s expert witness testified, in order to grant lands other than those claimed they must, at least, have certain “agro-ecological suitability” and be submitted to a study to determine their potential for being developed by the Community.142 119. In this regard, the Court observes that the members of the Community have rejected the alternate lands offered on different occasions during the domestic proceedings, precisely because they did not meet the necessary quality requirements. The State never refuted this argument or took any action to confirm or deny it (infra footnote 148). 120. Moreover, regarding the 1,500 hectares where the Community is currently settled, the Court finds that this surface extension can hardly be considered sufficient and, consequently, fulfill the right to communal property of its members, as it does not even meet the minimum legal extension established in Paraguay. Under Paraguayan law, the members of the Community have a right to a minimum of 100 hectares for each family.143 Since the Community is currently made up of 66 families, an area of 1,500 hectares would not be large enough, particularly as some expert reports consider that not even the Paraguayan legal minimum is sufficient for a community such as Xákmok Kásek to carry out its traditional activities and way of life.144 121. Second, while recognizing that the Community’s traditional territory is not limited to the land claimed, the Court recalls that that the said traditional territory does not extend to the whole of the Central and Lower Chaco. In this regard, the Court reiterates its previous considerations (supra paras. 94 to 107), according to which the area claimed by the Community is that part of its traditional land that is most appropriate for settlement and development. Therefore, the State should have in the past and should still channel its efforts to realize the right to property of the members of the Community in relation to that land. 2.2. Measures taken by the State to recover the traditional lands 122. Since it has been concluded that the lands being claimed is the most appropriate traditional land for the Community to settle on; that possession of this land is not necessary, and that the right to recover the said traditional lands remains in force, the Court will now examine the measures taken by the State to ensure the recovery of that land to the members of the Community. 123. The Commission argued that “[t]he ineffectiveness of the procedures established in Paraguayan law to fulfill indigenous peoples’ right to property have meant that, in practice, the State does not guarantee the Community’s right to 141 List of properties for sale (file of attachments provided by the State at the public hearing, attachment 2, tome IX, folios 3769 to 3774). 142 Cf. Expert testimony of Sergio Iván Braticevic, supra note 17, folio 4248. 143 Cf. Article 18 of Law No. 904/81, supra note 64, folio 2404. 144 In the 1995 report presented by the CEADUC, within the administrative action to reclaim their land filed by the Community, it was considered that the area of 178 hectares for each family claimed by the Community at that time was insufficient for the conservation and development of the Community’s specific lifestyle. (Cf. CEADUC Anthropological Report, supra note 55, folios 735 to 750). Expert witness Rodrigo Villagra Carron agreed with this (Cf. Testimony of Rodrigo Villagra Carron, supra note 17). 29