13. The petitioners state that from 2004 to 2007, the community launched procedures three times before first instance civil courts to replace the pages, but had no success. According to the authorities, this was not the proper remedy, or the document they were using to accredit representation was not legible. They submit that on January 12, 2009, the community sought a writ of protection before the Civil and Commercial Appellate Court against the general director of FONTIERRAS for having required the community to act to replace the missing page. The writ of protection was rejected and in response to the community’s appeal, on February 8, 2011, the Constitutional Court overturned the decision and ordered the authority in question to “request replacement of the corresponding page and pursue all actions, effects, remedies and obtain and propose suitable evidentiary measures until the court order to replace the registry page has been complied with.” 14. The petitioners state that according to the Constitutional Court, although Agua Caliente has not received final title, it is understood that it will be identical in nature and content to the provisional title granted in 1985, which does not recognize the collective right of indigenous peoples to full control over the land and its natural resources. They state that the titling procedure is delayed and ineffective, as Agua Caliente began the procedures before INTA in 1974 and more than 35 years later it still has not received final title even though it has complied with all the requirements established by law, including full payment of a certain amount of the value of the land. They also add that the law’s procedures and requirements do not meet the needs and capacities of indigenous communities because the administrative procedures must be carried out in Spanish in Guatemala City, not in the native tongue of the indigenous communities or in the place where they live. 15. They state that the rule of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies does not apply to Agua Caliente’s right to collective control of its natural resources and the right to self-determination and selfgovernance because there is no legal proceeding under domestic law for establishing these collective rights for indigenous peoples. Finally, they allege discriminatory treatment at the hands of FONTIERRAS, as in 2006, another community called “Agua Caliente Sexan” asked that agency to replace pages missing from the General Property Registry so title to their lands could be issued. In that case, FONTIERRAS acted without delay and was able to replace the pages without requiring the community to take any action. Granting of mining license 16. The petitioners indicate that on December 13, 2004, the Ministry of Energy and Mining granted a three-year exploration license to mining company EXMIBAL to explore for a variety of minerals on land belonging to 16 Q’eqchi’ Mayan communities—including Agua Caliente—for a project called “Phoenix.” The petitioners allege that the license was granted illegally, without prior consultation and without the consent of the communities affected. Because of this lack of recognition and lack of transparency in the public participation process (among other reasons) the Q’eqchi’ communities met in a community assembly and decided to oppose the Phoenix project. 17. They state that in 2005, EXMIBAL transferred the rights of the license to the Compañía Guatemalteca de Níquel (CGN), and at the beginning of 2006, the CGN filed an environmental impact study on the Phoenix project with the Ministry of the Environment and Natural Resources (MARN). The petitioners state that according to the Regulations on Environmental Evaluation, Oversight, and Monitoring, the ministry must inform potentially affected communities of the study by publishing it in a newspaper so they can make comments or oppose it should they decide to. 18. They state that the MARN resolution approving the environmental impact study did not mention any of the comments submitted by the Q’eqchi indigenous communities and organizations opposing the project even though they were filed on time and in the proper format. They added that they submitted two reports signed by the representatives of more than nine Q’eqchi’ Mayan communities and by the Office of the Q’eqchi’ Ombudsman rejecting the project based on its environmental effects on the forests and water resources, especially Lake Izabal, a water source on which the communities depend for their livelihood. They allege that this omission constitutes an act of discrimination that violates the right to participation and consultation of all the affected communities. They maintain that the study was not made available in the 3