Mapuche communities during the agrarian reform and those that are claimed as part of the ancestral lands prior to the reduction process” stood out.88 87. In its 2003 Report, the Commission for the Historical Truth and New Deal with the Indigenous Peoples made various “proposals and recommendations” related to the claims of the Mapuche people, among which it indicated that “reparation mechanisms should be created and, insofar as possible, for restitution of the Mapuche lands when, based on the background information, this is justified,” and also that “[i]t is the duty of the State […] to institute mechanisms for evaluating these demands and meeting them when they are justified,” and “[s]ettling the claims of the indigenous peoples while respecting the integrity of the personal assets of the actual owners.” In this regard, the Commission insisted that “the land claims of the indigenous peoples and communities” must be dealt with promptly; to the contrary, “frequent and permanent conflict would be encouraged.”89 88. At the beginning of the decade of 2000, Law No. 19,253, the so-called “Indigenous Peoples Act” was in force; it had been enacted in 1993 and established norms “for the protection, promotion and development of the indigenous peoples.” Matters relating to property, culture, education, political participation and development, as well as mechanisms for access to indigenous lands and waters were regulated by this law, as well as the creation of the National Development Corporation (CONADI), responsible for the administration of the indigenous peoples’ land and water fund. The fund “operates through two mechanisms […]: (a) subsidizing the purchase of lands in order to extend them, and (b) the direct purchase of “disputed lands.’”90 89. On September 15, 2008, Chile ratified Convention 169 of the International Labour Organization concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries. According to the report of James Anaya, as United Nations Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous people, the ratification and entry into force of this Convention “help[ed] to strengthen the legal framework to guarantee rights and guide the State’s public policies concerning the indigenous peoples.”91 90. Despite the existence of this legal framework and of the actions that the State undertook within it such as purchasing land and delivering it to Mapuche communities, several bodies and special procedures of the United Nations and the above-mentioned Commission for the Historical Truth and New Deal for the Indigenous Peoples, as well as different types of evidence have all indicated that the State’s response to the Mapuche indigenous people’s land claims has been slow and lacks an effective mechanism.92 In this regard, in his final report on his visit to 88 Cf. Report of the Historical Truth and New Deal Commission, Volume III, Tome II, Chapter II, p. 717 (file of helpful evidence presented by the State, folio 958). 89 Cf. Report of the Historical Truth and New Deal Commission delivered to Ricardo Lagos Escobar, President of the Republic at the time, on October 28, 2003, pp. 575, 576 and 578. 90 Cf. Report of the Constitutional, Legislative and Justice Committee on the Senate’s mandate “regarding the Mapuche conflict in relation to public order and security in certain regions,” Bulletin No. S-680-12, July 9, 2003, p. 144 (file of annexes to the Merits Report 176/10, annex 4, folios 226 and 227), and UN Doc. A/HRC/12/34/ Add.6, 5 October 2009, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous people, James Anaya, Addendum, The situation of indigenous peoples in Chile: follow-up to the recommendations made by the previous Special Rapporteur, para. 24 (file of annexes to the Merits Report 176/10, annex 12, folio 434). 91 Cf. UN Doc. A/HRC/12/34/ Add.6, 5 October 2009, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous people, James Anaya, Addendum, The situation of indigenous peoples in Chile: follow-up to the recommendations made by the previous Special Rapporteur, para. 6 (file of annexes to the Merits Report 176/10, annex 12, folio 429). 92 Cf. UN Doc. A/HRC/12/34/ Add.6, 5 October 2009, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous people, James Anaya, Addendum, The situation of indigenous peoples in Chile: follow-up to the recommendations made by the previous Special Rapporteur, para. 24 (file of annexes to the Merits Report 176/10, annex 12, folios 434 and 435); UN Doc. E/CN.4/2004/80/Add.3, 17 November 2003, Report of the Special 30