54 claim. The acknowledged complexity of the case does not justify the procedure taking so many years; c) the delay of almost twelve years in the administrative procedure is not due to the complexity of the matter, but rather to lack of application of appropriate criteria, by the State, to restore the ancestral territory claimed by the Yakye Axa Community; d) in the criminal proceeding begun on March 17, 1999 against the members of the Yakye Axa Community for allegedly invading private property, for grave coercion and for theft, they were not allowed to appoint an attorney and they were unable to exercise their right to defense, which constitutes a violation of paragraphs d) and e) of Article 8(2) of the Convention. Likewise, the State has not taken steps to investigate and punish, if appropriate, the judges or other judicial officials involved in this proceeding; e) Paraguay has not ensured the Yakye Axa Community and its members an effective remedy to protect them against acts that abridge their rights or an appropriate procedure to solve their claim to traditional territory and, thus, to protect their right to property and to possession of that property; f) Paraguayan domestic legislation establishes as the only procedure to be followed by the indigenous communities to grant them their lands, the one set forth in Law No. 904/81. This law in fact removes the issue of collective ownership of land by the indigenous peoples from regular venue. The Yakye Axa Community began the procedure to claim its traditional territory in October 1993. This procedure was exhausted, in all its stages, without any results to date; g) on March 3, 1997 the Yakye Axa Community filed an amparo remedy to protect their right to hunt, fish and gather fruit in their ancestral territory, which was rejected by the trial and appellate courts due to a matter of form. Thus, the Yakye Axa Community was deprived of a legal decision to protect its right to subsistence. Likewise, the constitutional motion filed before the Supreme Court of Justice against the decisions that rejected the amparo remedy was decided unfavorably and with unjustified delay, and h) lack of an effective remedy to protect those rights under domestic legislation in an effective manner has meant, for the Yakye Axa Community, deprivation of the use and enjoyment, freely and fully, of their ancestral land and of their traditional territory and habitat. It has also made it impossible for the Yakye Axa Community and its members to freely and fully enjoy the right to live in decent conditions and to give meaning to their existence. Insofar as this took place, the State abridged Article 2 of the American Convention to the detriment of the members of the Yakye Axa Community. Pleadings of the State 54. The State, in turn, alleged that: a) It has not abridged Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention to the detriment of the Yakye Axa Community and its members. The legal and procedural mechanisms set forth in the law as part of the materialization of