requirements for applicable when: exhaustion of domestic remedies shall not be a. the domestic legislation of the state concerned does not afford due process of law for the protection of the right or rights that have allegedly been violated; b. the party alleging violation of his rights has been denied access to the remedies under domestic law or has been prevented from exhausting them; or c. there has been unwarranted delay in rendering a final judgment under the aforementioned remedies. 31. The Brazilian State considers that the requirement for prior exhaustion of domestic remedies has not been satisfied, and that the exception claimed by the petitioners concerning unwarranted delay in the decision on the remedies is inapplicable. According to the State, the administrative demarcation proceeding begun in 1989 has moved forward satisfactorily and within a reasonable time. In conclusion, it maintains that the demarcation process is moving ahead without delay, although it recognizes that the process has not yet been completed because of difficulties encountered with regard to removal of nonindigenous occupants from the identified territory. 32. In the first place, the Inter-American Commission notes that in accordance with the principles of international law and the precedents established by the IACHR and the Inter-American Court, the State that argues non-exhaustion must identify which domestic remedies are to be used and provide evidence of their efficacy.8 33. In this regard, the IACHR considers it pertinent to reiterate that the subject of this petition is the Xucuru indigenous people’s right to the property of its ancestral lands. The parties agree that the right to property (or to “possession” as it is termed in Brazilian legislation) of the indigenous peoples in Brazil must be guaranteed through an administrative demarcation process at the initiative of FUNAI and the Ministry of Justice. It is also agreed in this case that the administrative demarcation process of the Xucuru indigenous land began in 1989, 20 years ago, without having been completed via administrative action. 8 IACHR. Report N° 32/05, Admissibility, P 642/03, Luis Rolando Cuscul Pivaral et al. affected by HIV/AIDS, Guatemala, March 7, 2005, paras. 33-35; IA-Court. Case of the Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community v. Nicaragua. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of February 1, 2000. Series C No. 66, para. 53; and Case of Nogueira de Carvalho et al v. Brazil. Preliminary Objections and Merits. Judgment of November 28, 2006. Series C No. 161, para. 51. 11