their economic, social, cultural, and environmental interests. However, it adds that there is still no legislation specifically protecting community land or the land of indigenous communities with title and recognition of ancestral possession. The regularization process thus ensures the existence, value, use, and enjoyment of their real property until it is delimited, demarcated, and titled. 26. The State notes that on March 31, 1995, it signed the Agreement on Identity and the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and in 1996 it ratified ILO Convention 169. Also, it notes that the Political Constitution recognizes in Chapter II, Section 3 the rights of indigenous communities. It also indicates that the Land Fund Act regulates the practical matters of access to land for the comprehensive and sustainable development of indigenous peoples, the regularization of the process is to adjudicate State lands, the development of sustainable agrarian communities, and the strengthening of institutions to meet the aspirations of society and comply with the law. 27. With regard to the requirements of exhaustion of domestic remedies, the State notes that the petitioners did not launch a special sentence execution proceeding under its obligation to act—that is, it did not take legal action to comply with the order issued by a competent authority to replace the missing page. It alleges that given FONTIERRAS’ failure to register their property, the petitioners have the legal authority to take action before the country’s jurisdictional bodies to press their claim and establish the corresponding responsibility for the alleged violation of the community’s rights. It also adds that they could bring a civil suit for reparation of damages through the ordinary courts, as provided for in Article 96 of the Civil and Mercantile Procedural Code, which would seek to establish whether damages took place and, if so, establish the corresponding compensation. Granting of mining license 28. The State indicates that on November 3, 2005, the announcement was published in Spanish and q’eqchí’ indicating that the complete case file on the environmental impact study of the CGN mining project was in the MARN’s offices and the offices of the Izabal departmental offices, and that it would be available to those interested in making observations, comments, and expressing opposition from November 4 to December 1, 2005. It adds that the organizations Fundación Defensores de la Naturaleza, FUNDAECO, Asociación Estoreña para el Desarrollo Integral, and Asociación Amigos del Lago, provided their opinions, which were taken into account in the resolution that approved the study. It indicates that in 2007, a study was submitted to "Update and Expand the Nickel Processing Plant of the Phoenix Mining Project, El Estor, Izabal,” which was approved via resolution N° 1311_2007/ECM/LP. 29. With regard to prior consultation, the State maintains that Articles 15 of the Mining Act and 33 of the Regulations on Environmental Evaluation, Oversight, and Monitoring require the environmental impact study be made public prior to granting the exploitation license, and this was done. It indicates that "although this is not the ideal consultation mechanism, according to the [ILO] Convention it does constitute a mechanism for providing prior information so anyone can oppose it should they feel it necessary." The State argues that the CGN complied with the requirements to grant the license. 30. The State maintains that although the community’s right to oppose the project expired, they have other mechanisms available such as constitutional amparo appeals and summary stay of dangerous works through a civil proceeding if they believe there is some threat to collective or common rights. It also indicates that domestic mechanisms are available for raising opposition should residents be unhappy with the launching of business enterprises in rural areas. It notes that the Mining Act regulates procedures for raising opposition before the General Mining Directorate, which include filing environmental impact studies and technical reports with the MARN and holding a hearing. 31. Regarding the failure to publish the environmental impact study, the State indicates that the petitioners can file a complaint alleging disobedience of a public official over the failure to comply with the order to take the community’s participation into account, in keeping with Articles 50 through 54, 78, and 185 of the Amparo, Habeas Corpus, and Constitutionality Act. 5