rejected. Finally, on February 27, 1997 the petitioners filed a complaint for denial of the previous appeal before the federal Supreme Court, which rejected that complaint on February 5, 1998. 74. Once the petition was laid before the IACHR, and following publication of Decree 461/99 of December 24, 1999 13 (whereby the Governor of the Province awarded portions of fiscal lots 55 in community ownership to members of various indigenous communities and to certain criollos), the petitioners filed a motion for constitutional protection before the Supreme Court of the Province of Salta against the executive of that Province, on March 8, 2000. The petitioners argue that the General Secretariat of Governance of Salta, prior to approval of Decree 461, had issued resolution 423/99 ordering the publication of edicts for 15 days in the Official Gazette and the newspaper El Tribuno citing the unnamed occupants and all those who claimed rights over the lands of fiscal lots 55 to be awarded and calling upon them to enforce their rights according to law, something that would expressly violate the recognized rights of ownership, equality and due process and, especially, those recognized for the indigenous communities both in the national Constitution and in the Constitution of the Province of Salta. The petitioners also indicate that the individualized properties that were to be awarded by means of Decree 461/99 were part of the original claim filed in 1991, and Decree 3097/95 (which approved the actions of the Honorary Advisory Commission) expressly established that the land to be delivered "is held under single title without internal divisions". For these reasons, the petitioners demanded that the effects be suspended and that resolution 423/99 of the General Secretariat of Governance of the Province and Decree 461/99 of the provincial executive be declared unconstitutional because they violate Articles 14, 17, 18 and 75 (17) of the national Constitution, and Article 15 of the provincial Constitution. 75. The petitioners hold that, prior to submission of the present appeal for amparo, they had filed an administrative motion for revocation against resolution 423/99 and had demanded suspension of the act, for grave shortcomings that disqualified it as an administrative act. When that motion was rejected on December 20, 1999,14 the petitioners filed an appeal on December 30, 1999, repeating the demand to suspend the act, and that appeal had not been decided at the date the motion for amparo was filed. For these reasons, the petitioners maintained that it was because of the lack of any other 13 Boletín Oficial de la Provincia de Salta of January 14, 2000, Decreto Nº 461 of the Secretaría General de la Gobernación, p. 223. 14 Resolución Nº 500/99 of the Secretaría General de la Gobernación, notified December 27, 1999.