3 13. The petitioners assert that because of their traditional society as hunter-gatherer nomads, who travel through their ancestral territory in accordance with culturally established patterns, the land has 3 a fundamental importance for them, as an economic and cultural resource. They explain that the economic life, the physical survival – life and health -- and the cultural identity of the indigenous communities of the Lhaka Honhat Association are inextricably bound to their ancestral territory; due to that unique relationship, international law grants special protection to indigenous peoples’ ancestral lands. They invoke in this regard both the inter-American system’s jurisprudence and the provisions of other international instruments and treaties, such as ILO Convention 169, as well as Article 75 – paragraph 17 of the Argentinean National Constitution. 14. The petitioners assert that different actions by the State constitute violations of Article 21 of the Convention: (a) “in having failed to delimit, demarcate and grant title to property of their traditional territory through a legal instrument that allows them to maintain their traditional use practices and their particular modes of relating to the land;” 4 (b) “in having carried out works, demarcations, measurements, and other activities that affected the integrity of the territory and the existence and value of the property that is in the area;” 5; and (c) “in having consented to and tolerated the illegitimate actions of private parties, such as the tending of wire fences, logging, bovine cattle grazing and the like” 6. In turn, failure to comply with the State duty to respect, protect and adopt the effective measures necessary to ensure effective enjoyment of the right to community property threatened the free development and the transmission of the communities’ culture, and thus violates several other rights such as health, life, education and the physical integrity of their members. 15. The petitioners contend that “the indigenous communities of Lots 55 and 14 of the province of Salta initiated procedures to have the State delimit, demarcate and grant property title for their traditionally occupied lands in 1984. Since then and up to the present, they undertook numerous actions that led to the State’s own recognition of its duty to give title to the lands to the communities. “[Nonetheless] the lands have not only not been titled yet to their name, but they have not even been delimited or demarcated”. According to petitioners, this implies that the communities have been unable to effectively enjoy their right to property, and “in addition, this omission, which is attributable to the State, creates a situation of legal uncertainty, because the communities are unable to know with precision what is the extent of their right to communal property and, therefore, gives way to a proliferation of acts that affect the free disposal, existence and value of the property located in the area where the indigenous develop their lives.”7 The petitioners also hold that “the domestic legislation of the Argentinean State, at both the federal and the provincial levels, recognizes the right of the indigenous communities of Lots 55 and 14 to the communal property of the lands. Even though the State recognized this right on numerous occasions, as of this date, it has not made it effective and it has even carried out several actions that constituted an open violation of such right. (…) In spite of these legal provisions, (…) the reality is that these normative recognitions do not translate into effective enjoyment of the rights by the indigenous 3 In their own words, “[f]or us the land is more than an economic resource, it is an essential part of our identity as a different culture. We feel linked in an indissoluble manner to it, that is why we say: ‘Ohapehen honhat Ihwo’ (we are the flower of the land). We are only asking for the property of the land where we have always lived. We demand respect, and to be given the possibility of living in peace in our land”. Initial petition, received by the IACHR on August 4, 1998, and transmitted to the State on January 26, 1999. 4 Petitioners’ observations on the merits, received by the IACHR on January 4, 2007, and transmitted to the State through note of January 12, 2007. 5 Petitioners’ observations on the merits, received by the IACHR on January 4, 2007, and transmitted to the State through note of January 12, 2007. 6 Petitioners’ observations on the merits, received by the IACHR on January 4, 2007, and transmitted to the State through note of January 12, 2007. 7 Petitioners’ observations on the merits, received by the IACHR on January 4, 2007, and transmitted to the State through note of January 12, 2007.