(supra footnote 31), he asked the INDI “to clarify that the said names correspond[ed] to one and the same community.”35 46. The Court notes from the evidence submitted that, in parallel, on November 2, 2009, the Community's representatives asked the INDI to make the said change of the Community's name in the resolution recognizing its leaders, indicating that the name Salazar “refer[red] to the Community's former settlement.”36 Furthermore, in response to the representatives' request, the INDI Legal Department indicated that it was necessary to amend the pertinent resolution “only with regard to the correct name of the Community, which should be 'Xákmok Kásek Indigenous Community’ of the Sanapaná ethnic group […],” leaving the names of the Community's leaders unchanged.37 However, to date, the resolution has not been changed. 47. Contrary to what the President of the INDI indicated during the public hearing, neither the Government Notary nor the INDI Legal Department requested that the ethnic group of the Community be amended in order to continue the process of granting title to the land.38 What both State bodies did request was the rectification of the name of the Community and, despite the corresponding request by the Community through it representatives, the State has still not done this. 48. The Court observes that the State argued that the representation of the Community is in question because of the different ethnic roots attributed to the Community in various documents, including the resolution recognizing its leaders and the letter in which the representatives requested the change in the Community's name in that resolution. However, bearing in mind the multi-ethnic composition of the Community (supra para. 43), the Court notes that this argument is insufficient to reject the usual representation of the Community exercised for more than 20 years, in a procedure before the State itself. If there were serious doubts about the Community’s representation, the State could have taken the pertinent measures to verify it, and there is no evidence of that before this Court. 49. Therefore, it is for the State, through the corresponding authorities, to amend the resolution that, according to the State, represents an insuperable obstacle to complying with its obligations towards the Xákmok Kásek Community. Consequently, it would not be reasonable to admit the State's request to suspend the instant case. 50. Based on the foregoing, the Court concludes that the request to suspend the proceedings submitted by the State is not admissible, and therefore it will proceed to examine the merits of the case. VI RIGHT TO COMMUNAL PROPERTY, JUDICIAL GUARANTEES, AND JUDICIAL PROTECTION (ARTICLES 21(1), 8(1) AND 25(1) OF THE AMERICAN CONVENTION) 35 Cf. Note E.M.G. No. 065 of April 7, 2010 addressed to the President of the INDI by the Government Notary (file of attachments to the State’s final arguments, tome X, folio 4208). 36 Cf. Communication of the representatives of November 2, 2009, addressed to the INDI (file of attachments provided by the State at the public hearing, tome IX, folio 3710). 37 Cf. Report No. 88/09 of November 6, 2009, issued by the INDI Legal Department (file of attachments provided by the State at the public hearing, tome IX, folio 3709). 38 Cf. Testimony of Lida Acuña, supra note 17. 13