35. The Commission argued that the fact that the Community is made up of families that belong to different ethnic groups “does not constitute […] an obstacle for this indigenous community to possess the right to its ancestral territory.” It stressed that the “multi-ethnic composition of the Community […] is due to its history” and that the indigenous peoples are dynamic human groups whose cultural composition “is restructured and reconfigured with the passage of time without this giving rise to the loss of its specific indigenous status.” It maintained that, irrespective of the different ethnic groups that make up the Community, “it is clearly identified as regards its location and general composition.” 36. The Court observes that the alleged differences regarding the identification of the Community refer, on the one hand, to the multi-ethnic nature of the Community and, on the other, its name. 2.1. Multi-ethnic nature of the Xákmok Kásek Community 37. First, the Court emphasizes that it is not for the Court or the State to determine the Community’s name or ethnic identity. As the State itself recognizes, it “cannot […] unilaterally assign or deny names of [the] indigenous communities, because this action corresponds to the Community concerned.” The identification of the Community, from its name to its membership, is a social and historical fact that is part of its autonomy. This has been the Court’s criterion in similar situations.16 Therefore, the Court and the State must restrict themselves to respecting the corresponding decision made by the Community; in other words, the way in which it identifies itself. 38. Despite the foregoing, this Court observes that, in Paraguay, there are 20 indigenous ethnic groups belonging to five linguistic families, namely: Enlhet-Enenlhet, formerly known as Lengua Maskoy, Mataco Mataguayo, Zamuco, Guaicurú, and Guaraní.17 In the Chaco region there are up to 17 different indigenous ethnic groups representing all five linguistic families.18 39. The Enlhet-Enenlhet19 linguistic family is composed of six peoples: Enxet (Lenguas or Enxet–Sur), Enlhet (Enlhet–Norte), Sanapaná, Angaité, Toba Maskoy, and Guaná. The Enlhet-Enenlhet have traditionally inhabited the Paraguayan Chaco,20 particularly the eastern central region,21 and are a historical people that have 16 Cf. Case of the Saramaka People v. Suriname. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 28, 2007. Series C No. 172, para. 164. 17 Cf. Expert testimony of Rodolfo Stavenhagen authenticated by notary public (merits file, tome II, folio 620); Notarized expert testimony of Sergio Iván Braticevic by affidavit (file of attachments to the State’s final arguments, tome X, folio 4238); testimony of Rodrigo Villagra Carron provided during the public hearing on April 14, 2010, during the forty-first special session held in Lima, Peru, and testimony of Lida Acuña provided during the public hearing on April 14, 2010, during the forty-first special session held in Lima, Peru. 18 Cf. Expert testimony of Iván Braticevic, supra note 17, folio 4238; testimony of Rodrigo Villagra Carron, supra note 17, and testimony of Lida Acuña, supra note 17. 19 Cf. Testimony of Rodrigo Villagra Carron, supra note 17; Testimony of Lida Acuña, supra note 17, and Kalish, Hannes and Unruh, Ernesto. 2003. “Enlhet-Enenlhet. Una familia lingüística chaqueña,” in Thule Rivista di studi americanisti, No. 14/15, April/October 2003 (file of attachments to the pleadings and motions brief, attachment 16, tome VII, folio 2915). 20 Cf. Case of the Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of March 29, 2006. Series C No. 146, para. 73(5), and Case of the Yakye Axa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay, supra note 5, para. 50(1). 21 Kalish, Hannes, and Unruh, Ernesto. 2003. “Enlhet-Enenlhet. Una familia lingüística chaqueña,” supra note 19, folio 2915. 10