government bodies, the petitioners, and representatives of the criollo families with their respective advisors), and it reported on a number of studies conducted by the technical group, and the dialogue in the expanded roundtable, among members of the Lhaka Honhat Association and the criollo population, dealing with the situation in the zone. 56. At the hearing held at Commission headquarters on March 2, 2005, the Provincial Attorney of Salta maintained that the human reality in the zone referred to by the petitioners has a history dating back over more than 100 years of peaceful coexistence between the aboriginal inhabitants and the criollo groups known as "chaqueños", and that the resulting mixture of bloods rendered obsolete the old criteria of ethnic purity and the possibility of discriminating in any aspect. As well, he argued that the delay in the present case implied a high human cost, because it was limiting and postponing indispensable public works that were essential to prevent a worsening of poverty in the region. For these reasons, the government of Salta had prepared a friendly settlement proposal, and intended to submit it for consideration by residents of the zone, via the referendum mechanism, since seeking the opinion of the people was in his view an essential feature of a democratic system. This land distribution proposal was delivered to the national government, to the petitioners and to the IACHR during the hearing. Subsequently, both the national government and the petitioners undertook to advise the government of the Province of Salta within 30 days of their position on that proposal. 57. On April 12, 2005, the Provincial Attorney of Salta informed the national government that, because it had received no response to his land distribution proposal, the provincial executive had decided at that date to hold a "popular consultation" with respect to the measures that should be taken in the zone covered by the Lhaka Honhat claims, and for this reason a draft referendum bill had been submitted to the Legislature. According to the Province, any new dialogue could only take place after the referendum. 58. Finally, on July 11, 2005, the Argentine State indicated that, because the petitioners had not submitted specific observations on the proposal made by the Province, it had no objection to seeing the Province's proposal aired internationally, without prejudice to the details and specifications that might be discussed within the project executing unit in the future in order to guarantee the project's compatibility with the required standards. Moreover, the national State asked the petitioners to transmit their position on the land distribution proposal by