Q’eqchi’ language despite the fact that the majority of the communities do not speak Spanish, and that the newspaper that published it does not circulate in the area where the communities reside. 19. The petitioners state that on January 13, 2006, environmental and indigenous organizations filed a writ of protection against the MARN before the Civil and Commercial Appellate Court questioning the study and highlighting the lack of prior consultation and the fact that information about the study was neither circulated in the area of the affected communities nor made available in the indigenous language. On April 17, 2006, the MARN granted the CGN an exploitation license for a term of 25 years under which the company holding it is required to begin work to exploit the deposit within 12 months. They indicate that on November 27, 2006, the presiding Civil and Mercantile Appellate Court of the Constitutional Court of Protection granted the writ of protection requested and ordered the ministry to resolve the lack of participation of the communities affected in a revised environmental impact study. 20. In sum, the petitioners allege that Guatemala violated their rights to collective control of the lands and natural resources and the indigenous peoples’ rights to self-determination and self-governance in relation to the obligation to respect rights and the duty to adopt provisions and domestic law due to the lack of a law recognizing those rights, enshrined in Article 8, 21, and 25, in conjunction with Articles 1(1) and 2 of the Convention. They allege that existing laws have failed to recognize these rights and omitted the participation of indigenous peoples from processes and procedures regulating the adjudication of their lands, mineral exploitation on their territories, and approval of environmental and social impact studies for mining projects presented by proponents of mining projects. B. Position of the State Land titling procedure 21. The State alleges that the INTA, through Agreement 11-85 of February 25, 1985, ruled pro indiviso as Collective Agrarian Property in favor of the 64 peasants comprising the Agua Caliente Lot 9 community, a plot registered with the General Property Registry under number 1381 of page 96, book 21 North Group, for a price of 32,490.35 quetzales. 22. According to the document provided by the State, the Family Collective Agrarian Property adjudication proceedings were concluded in favor of the 64 members of the community, and the next step was to grant the public adjudication instrument to them. However, the book with the page registering the real property rights to the farm, page 96, was not found. It indicates that on July 17, 1998, the Registry filed the complaint received by the staff of the Registry Reform stating that when physically reviewing the books, it found pages missing, including from Book 21 of the North Group. 23. According to the documentation provided by the State, on August 5, 2011, FONTIERRAS appeared before the Eighth Civil Trial Court to begin “Voluntary Steps to Replace Pages and Entries Registering Real Property Rights,” and on May 16, 2012, the court ruled in its favor and authorize the General Property Registrar of the Central Zone to proceed to replace registries 1, 5, and 6 of page 96. According to the final entry, the plot was registered as belonging to the State. The State indicates that on June 22, 2012, the Registry suspended the registration because it was not certain that entries 2, 3, and 4 of the page were replaced, and therefore, the successive tract could not be proven. 24. It indicates that on April 24, 2013, the Registry ordered the investigations to obtain the successive tract of the registry entry of the plot be exhausted. They went to the Directorate of State Property in the Department of Public Finances to obtain a photocopy of the entry from the year 1953. Research was also performed in the Property Registry Archive and the General Archive of Central America, confirming that neither place had documentation on the plot. The State concludes that FONTIERRAS acted effectively in its attempts to replace the page and entry of the original registration of ownership of real property rights over the plot. 25. The State argues that the individual and collective rights of indigenous peoples and communities are constitutionally guaranteed, and that measures of judicial protection are in place to protect 4