11 Association. The IACHR notes that several of these circuits are superposed, overlapping and crossing each other. 46. The indigenous communities of Lots 14 and 55, who currently preserve their ancestral way of life as nomads, hunters and gatherers, as well as their ancestral cultural notions relating to the land and with nature thereby claim access to territorial property under the specific modality of a common, undivided title to property for all of the communities, 40 that is, to a territory which is physically continuous, 41 without divisions or individual or community parceling . The communities of the Lhaka Honhat Association oppose the parceling of the territory, or the adjudication of titles to land property to individual communities or families.42 The non-indigenous or “creole” population of Fiscal Lots 14 and 55 47. The territory of Fiscal Lots 14 and 55 is also occupied by families of non-indigenous 43 settlers. Given the difference between the hunter-gatherer, fishing and nomadic way of life of the indigenous communities, and the cattle-raising way of life of the creole population, that seriously degrades the natural habitat, conflicts and tensions over land use and access to natural resources have 44 arisen between the two groups. One main problem is that of the appropriation of lands and wire fences installed by the creoles, which prevent, restrict and undermine the indigenous’ mobility. 45 The Lhaka Honhat (Our Land) Association of Aboriginal Communities 40 In the petitioners’ words, “[i]n the past, persons would move freely across a physical space without frontiers, exchanging goods and creating family ties and political alliances among the different groups. Nowadays, in spite of the environmental transformations and the cultural adaptations, the exchange of goods between persons is still alive. Given that any man or woman has the right to freely access the natural resources of the place where they are located, there is no notion of exclusive use, even though a family group can have a specific space within the total available space to carry out their cultivations.” Petitioners’ observations on the merits, received by the IACHR on January 4, 2007, and transmitted to the State through note of January 12, 2007. 41 As they explain in the initial petition, “we also need all of the land, joined together and without subdivisions or parcels, because amongst ourselves we are one large community. We are all related, we share the land. Thus, when we go to the forest to hunt and gather honey and fruits, we meet our neighbours, because our places of gathering are superimposed. Those who live on the margin of the river meet those who live on the streams; we have the same territory in common. It is thus the joint property of the lands which has historically been our claim, and not the individual property of some parcels by each family or community.” [Initial petition, received by the IACHR on August 4, 1998, and transmitted to the State on January 26, 1999] 42 Petition cited in: CARRASCO, Morita and BRIONES, Claudia: “La Tierra que nos quitaron”. Documento IWGIA No. 18, Buenos Aires, 1996, p. 195. Document submitted as annex of the petitioners’ observations on the merits, received by the IACHR on January 4, 2007, and transmitted to the State through note of January 12, 2007. 43 It is explained in the initial petition that “our lands are also inhabited by the creoles, non-indigenous population, since in 1902 a group of them requested permission from the National Government to establish a colony in the lands that extend to the South of the right margin of the Pilcomayo River. Our ancestors, with hospitality, treated them with kindness and respect, allowing them to build their houses there. However, conflicts began to emerge because the territories of each group were not clearly demarcated. Unfortunately, until the present day the struggle between creoles and indigenous is constant; the Government of the Province of Salta is responsible for this conflict, because it has failed to adopt the necessary measures to demarcate the territories that correspond to each group. On the other hand, the economic activities carried out by both groups are opposed. It is not possible for both groups to adequately use the same territory. The creoles are essentially cattle-raisers.” Initial petition, received by the IACHR on August 4, 1998, and transmitted to the State on January 26, 1999. 44 This situation is described as follows by an indigenous leader: “Regarding the settlers, whom we call creoles or Chaqueños: they currently tend their wire fences within the area and don’t allow anyone in to hunt, fish, look for fruits. They expel our women who are seeking fruits of the forest. (…) We do not have money to purchase food in a shop. So if they do not allow us into the hunting area, we are done, there is no other livelihood. Deep down, they have their own way of life, they manage their affairs, and we also have a different way of life. (…) When we claim title to property of our lands we are not saying that they do not need the land. We are not saying that they do not have a right to the land, that we have all the rights – we are not saying that. We are saying that they need land too, but that they must be separate in order to appease our entire community. And so that they can also be in peace to develop their own way of life.” Testimony provided with the petitioners’ observations on the merits, received by the IACHR on January 4, 2007, and transmitted to the State through note of January 12, 2007. 45 See in this regard: CARRASCO, Morita and BRIONES, Claudia: “La Tierra que nos quitaron”. Documento IWGIA No. 18, Buenos Aires, 1996, p. 224-225. Document provided as an annex to the petitioners’ observations on the merits, received by the IACHR on January 4, 2007, and transmitted to the State through note of January 12, 2007.