68 forbidding entry of the members of the Community to the territory of Estancia Loma Verde (supra para. 50.85); several beekeeping boxes that belonged to the Community were seized (supra para. 50.84), and an order was issued to remove the Community’s dwellings (supra para. 50.87). All these steps were taken without hearing the members of the Yakye Axa Community and without their participation through an attorney of their choice. Also, the members of the Community were unable to submit evidence in their defense and to examine the witnesses offered by the other party. This defenselessness of the members of the Community continued until September 14, 2001, when the Judge accepted participation of the INDI as representative of the Yakye Axa Community (supra para. 50.88). According to the file in the instant case, the criminal proceeding did not go beyond the preliminary proceedings. 117. The Court deems, as it has found previously,188 that lack of a defense counsel constitutes a violation of the right to fair trial embodied in Article 8 of the American Convention. Likewise, the Inter-American Court has pointed out that the accused has the right, so as to exercise his defense,189 to examine the witnesses testifying against or for him, as well as to offer the testimony of individuals who may shed light on the facts.190 118. Therefore, this Court deems that in the instant case the State violated the right of the members of the Yakye Axa Community to be represented by a defense counsel chosen by them. 119. For the aforementioned reasons, the Court deems that Paraguay abridged the rights embodied in Articles 8(1), 8(2)(d), 8(2)(e), 8(2)(f) and 25 of the American Convention, in combination with Articles 1(1) and 2 of that same Convention, to the detriment of the members of the Yakye Axa Indigenous Community. IX VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 21 OF THE AMERICAN CONVENTION (RIGHT TO PROPERTY) IN COMBINATION WITH ARTICLES 1(1) AND 2 OF THAT SAME CONVENTION Pleadings of the Commission 120. With regard to Article 21 of the Convention, the Commission alleged that: a) the right to property embodied in the American Convention cannot be interpreted in isolation, but rather taking into account the overall legal system in which it exists, bearing in mind both domestic and international law, in light of Article 29 of the Convention. In this regard, and in a situation that also involved claims of indigenous peoples to ancestral lands, the Inter-American Court, by means of an evolutionary interpretation of Article 21 of the 188 See Case of Tibi, supra note 179, para. 194. 189 See Case of Lori Berenson, supra note 2, para. 184, and Case of Castillo Petruzzi et al.. Judgment of May 30, 1999. Series C No. 52, para. 154 190 See Case of Lori Berenson, supra note 2, para. 185; Case of Ricardo Canese, supra note 179, para. 166, and Case of Castillo Petruzzi et al., supra note 189, para. 155.