4 communities.”8 In this regard they cite the provisions of the National and Provincial Constitutions, as well as legislation at both levels. 16. As for the failure to comply with the duty of effectively transferring land property through a legal modality that respects their way of life, they explain that since the beginning of their territorial claim, the indigenous communities have requested the State to grant a title to property in the name of all of the indigenous communities of Lots 55 and 14, given that this is the form of property that is compatible with their traditional means of subsistence, given that the indigenous communities of these Lots are nomadic and derive their livelihood from ancestral hunting, fishing and gathering practices. They will only be able to continue their traditional way of life if the unity and the integrity of the territory that they travel through is maintained. 9 The petitioners point out that “(i) the State has the legal obligation of protecting, with effective measures, the cultural identity of indigenous peoples, and for this purpose it must formalize indigenous property respecting the special relationship that these peoples have with the land and its resources, a fundamental element of their way of being, seeing and acting in the world; (ii) both the National and the Provincial States recognized on repeated occasions that the legal instrument which best protects the right to property of the communities of Lots 55 and 14 is one which allows for the preservation of the unity of the territory; (iii) it is the adequate form to preserve the ecological requirements of the environment.”10 17. Petitioners assert that the State authorities at the national and provincial levels themselves recognized on several occasions that the right to property of the indigenous communities of Lots 14 and 55 is better protected with a legal instrument that allows them to maintain the unity of the territory; therefore, “the implementation of the right to property through a legal instrument that conserves the unity of the lands is a fair expectation created by the State itself. In some cases this expectation acquired the status of a legally recognized obligation in the domestic system. In others, it entailed the creation of bodies that were specialized in the matter, which justified the modality of a joint title to property for granting the lands to the communities.”11 In this sense, they consider that by virtue of general legal principles of estoppel and good faith, “these acknowledgments must be regarded as unilateral acts that imply declarations of intent which create obligations for the State that issued them, and rights in favor for those who invoke them. These are true acts that generate prerogatives in favor of third parties, who are thus in a position to demand that the author of the declaration behaves in the sense of the obligation that it has willfully assumed”12 18. Additionally, for the petitioners, the guarantee of a shared title to the unity of the territory “is the modality that best corresponds to the ecological requirements of the environment, and to the ecological sustainability that must guide any solution.” 13 On this point they explain that indigenous people have the right to demand that the State adopt the necessary measures to protect their habitat and the natural resources present therein, and to participate in their administration and conservation, a right which is made impossible to exercise by environmental degradation. 8 Petitioners’ observations on the merits, received by the IACHR on January 4, 2007, and transmitted to the State through note of January 12, 2007. 9 Petitioners’ observations on the merits, received by the IACHR on January 4, 2007, and transmitted to the State through note of January 12, 2007. 10 Petitioners’ observations on the merits, received by the IACHR on January 4, 2007, and transmitted to the State through note of January 12, 2007. 11 Petitioners’ observations on the merits, received by the IACHR on January 4, 2007, and transmitted to the State through note of January 12, 2007. 12 Petitioners’ observations on the merits, received by the IACHR on January 4, 2007, and transmitted to the State through note of January 12, 2007. 13 Petitioners’ observations on the merits, received by the IACHR on January 4, 2007, and transmitted to the State through note of January 12, 2007.