7 the community, represented by the State, over the interest of the individual who must yield to public requirement.” (...) Clearly, then, since expropriation is a unilateral act of the expropriating agency (Congress), as a result of exercising State power, of the “jus imperii”, all the more so when said act must be expressed in the form of a law, intervention of the owner in actions of the chambers in the process of expropriation is not in order. (...) The decision adopted by Congress must be based on concrete facts that generate that “cause of public or social interest” mentioned in the Constitution, leading the legislators to the conviction that the expropriation must take place. Congress has the authority to assess whether in a given situation said “cause of public or social interest” actually exists and is sufficiently significant to justify the exceptional action to which we have referred. (...) In this same regard, the veto by the Executive branch states the following: “As a logical corollary of this ideal of providing access to landholding for the largest possible number of countrymen, we must highlight that the spirit of the Constitution reflects rejection of large scale landholdings, whether or not they are latifundia”... 20. Involvement of the Legislative branch of government in the two requests for expropriation of lands of Estancia Loma Verde must be assessed in this legal framework (para. 8). In the first case, the expropriation bill submitted by Members of Congress Sonia de León and Rafael Filizzola was withdrawn by means of a Congressional Resolution, in response to a request by the proponents of the bill, given the involvement of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and the interest of the Paraguayan State in attaining a friendly settlement.14 The second expropriation request was rejected by the Senate. In this case, the senators, exercising their constitutional authority, did not find that the social problems of the Yakye Axa Community could be solved exclusively by expropriation of the farms mentioned in the bill. The minute of the regular meeting of June 27, 2002 does not reflect non-recognition of the rights of the indigenous community to landholding, but rather rejection of expropriation of the farms of Estancia Loma Verde. Senator Rachid Lichi, specifically, mentioned the provisions of Law 904, which in fact require, for expropriation of private lands, that they be occupied by the community benefiting from the expropriation.15 21. When they rejected the aforementioned expropriation bill, the Senators acted on the basis of the conviction that their decision was based on their constitutional authority, pursuant to the respective provisions of domestic legislation. However, in their decision to reject the bill, the Senators did not refer to any of the provisions of Articles 63 and 64 of the National Constitution, which are not reflected in laws that enable effective exercise of the rights acknowledged therein. 14 Note by the Members of Congress who proposed the bill, received on November 17, 2000, file 3886, leaf 2. 15 Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Senate on June 27, 2002. Payment of fair compensation for expropriation of a farm with modern facilities, in accordance with domestic legislation and Article 21 (2) of the American Convention, would in fact limit the possibility of the State to intervene with the aim of protecting the rights of other indigenous communities entitled to said protection.