8 Insisting on expropriation of those same farms, in the framework of existing legislation, without correcting the aforementioned gaps, may be ineffective, insofar as the legislators can resort to the same reasoning, based on constitutional provisions, to once again reject the expropriation, even though this possible decision could reproduce existing inequalities and once again the law could be at odds with justice. 22. Based on the grounds set forth above, I disagree with the judgment insofar as it asserts that the State violated, to the detriment of the Yakye Axa Community of the Enxet-Lengua people, the right to property embodied in Article 21 of the American Convention. The steps taken to ensure the right to property of the Yakye Axa Community were not effective due to the domestic legal gaps, and due to inappropriate procedures, especially the insistence on claiming a single space regarding the traditional territory; in connection with this point, we must bear in mind that the testimony as a whole leads to the conclusion that at times the State did not carry out consultations with the Community when it took steps to purchase lands for the Community, but at other times it did but without attaining acceptance by the Community, which insisted on acquiring Loma Verde; this leads to the need to establish a difference, in terms of legal provisions, between consultation and consensus. 23. Given the delays to date, the State of Paraguay must ensure, within a reasonable time, the right to community property of the land in accordance with the demands of the Yakye Axa Community. The land for the community must be located within the ancestral territory of the Chanawatsan group of the Enxet-Lengua people and must encompass an appropriate area for the community to maintain and develop its ethnic identity. This action must take into account the principles of universality, indivisibility, and interdependence. 24. Analysis of the case leads to the conclusion that currently there are no domestic legal provisions to enable expropriation of lands that were part of the traditional habitat of indigenous peoples but are not currently occupied by them, unless the legislators are convinced, in specific cases, that said expropriation is in order; if the right to ancestral territory does not go hand in hand with possession of the lands claimed, there is no recognition of said right under domestic legislation.16 Furthermore, there are no suitable legal instruments for recovery of the lands of indigenous peoples that have been invaded and are currently occupied by third parties. Therefore, the Paraguayan State is under the obligation to take special steps to ensure effective exercise by the indigenous peoples of basic human rights enshrined in Articles 63 and 64 of the National Constitution, pursuant to the provisions of Article 2 of the American Convention: Domestic Legal Effects Where the exercise of any of the rights or freedoms referred to in Article 1 is not already ensured by legislative or other provisions, the States Parties undertake to adopt, in accordance with their constitutional processes and the provisions of this Convention, such legislative or other measures as may be necessary to give effect to those rights or freedoms. 16 Reply to the Application, para. 152.