that “the mercantilist perspective of the value of the land, which is understood merely as a means of production to generate ‘wealth,’ is inadmissible and inapplicable when addressing the indigenous question, because it supposes a limited vision of the reality, by failing to consider the possibility of a different concept from our ‘western’ way of looking at matters that relate to indigenous rights. Arguing that there is only one way to use and dispose of property would render the definition of Paraguay as a multicultural and multi-ethnic State illusory, eliminating the rights of thousands of individuals who inhabit Paraguay and enrich the country with their diversity.” 149. The Court again reiterates that, in the case of lands that are exploited and productive, it is the State’s responsibility, through the competent national bodies, to determine and to take into account the special relationship of the members of the indigenous community with the land reclaimed when deciding between the two rights. Otherwise, the right to reclaim their lands would be meaningless and would not offer a real possibility of recovering the traditional lands. By limiting the effective realization of the right to property of the members of the indigenous communities in this way, the State not only violates its obligations arising from the provisions of the Convention regarding the right to property, but also incurs responsibility in relation to the guarantee of an effective remedy and discriminatory treatment that produces social exclusion. 150. Additionally, the Court notes that the expropriation of the land claimed was denied based on its rational exploitation and the alleged effect for the company’s production unit (supra para. 71 and 72) when, of 10,700 hectares claimed, approximately 7,468 hectares were taken out of this production unit, either because they were sold to another owner (supra para. 69) or because they are within the area declared a private nature reserve, which establishes rigorous restrictions on its exploitation (supra paras. 80 and 82). b) Administrative procedure subject to the existence of a voluntary agreement between the parties 151. In addition, instead of establishing that a legal or administrative assessment must be made to decide the conflict, which will always exist in the case of traditional indigenous lands under private ownership, the solution is conditioned to a voluntary agreement between the parties. The INDI is only empowered to negotiate the direct purchase of land with the private owner or to negotiate the resettlement of the members of indigenous communities. As the State explained, “provided consensus is achieved between the indigenous peoples, the property owners, and the State, it is perfectly possible to resolve the problems of lack of access to the communal ownership of the land.” 152. Expert witness Enrique Castillo gave an opinion in this regard in the Yakye Axa case, explaining that the administrative procedure to reclaim land for indigenous communities has had positive results in cases in which the private owners have agreed to negotiate the transfer of the property reclaimed, but has been entirely ineffective in cases in which negotiations with the owners have not been viable.177 c) 177 Absence of technical and scientific procedures addressed at finding a definitive solution to the problem. Cf. Case of the Yakye Axa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay, supra note 5, para. 38(b). 36