61. The increasing extermination of wild animals, the large-scale introduction of cattle, and the fencing-off of the land, which meant that hunting became subject to the permission of the landowners, forced the indigenous peoples to occupy progressively the role of providing cheap manual labor for the new companies,50 and to take advantage of temporary residence on the different ranches in the area to continue practicing their subsistence activities, although with significant changes due to the restrictions imposed by the private property.51 62. Although the indigenous peoples continued to occupy their traditional lands, the market economy activities into which they were incorporated led to restrictions to their mobility, and resulted in sedentarization.52 63. According to the 2002 Second National Indigenous Peoples Census, 45% of the 412 communities surveyed still did not enjoy definitive legal personality.53 Currently, even though there are now 525 registered indigenous communities, 45% of them still “do not have access to their own land in order to settle and develop favorable living conditions.”54 1.2. The Xákmok Kásek Community and the land claim of its members 64. The process of colonizing the Paraguayan Chaco also affected the Xákmok Kásek Community. In 1930, the Anglican Church established the “Campo Flores” mission in order to continue the “christianization” of the Enxet and, in 1939, it founded the Xákmok Kásek missionary substation in the place where the Community was settled until 200855 (infra para. 77). According to the Community’s history, as told by one of their actual leaders, the Sanapaná were in the area where the Salazar Ranch56 was later founded “from a long time before,” even long before the War of the Chaco 50 Cf. Kidd, Stephen: “Los Indígenas Enxet: condiciones laborales”, supra note 40, folio 3678. 51 Cf. Case of the Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay, supra note 20, para. 73(4), and expert testimony of Rodolfo Stavenhagen, supra note 17, folio 620 to 627. 52 Cf. Case of the Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay, supra note 20, para. 73(3). 53 In 2002, 45% of the registered communities represented 185 communities whose land belonged mainly to Government institutions, or to ranches or companies. Cf. Expert testimony of Rodolfo Stavenhagen, supra note 17, folio 629, and Second National Indigenous Peoples and Household Census, 2002, prepared by the DGEEC of Paraguay (file of attachments to response, tome VIII, attachment 6(1), folios 3602 and 3603). 54 Cf. Draft Social Development Policy 2010-2020, dated February 25, 2010 (file of attachments provided by the State at the public hearing, tome IX, attachment XIX, folio 4091). 55 Cf. Anthropological Report of the Center for Anthropological Studies of the Universidad Católica Nuestra Señora de la Asunción, signed by Miguel Chase Sardi, dated December 21, 1995 (file of appendices to the application, appendix 3, tome II, folios 736 to 749 and appendix 3 tome IV, folios 1732 to 1746); the South American Missionary Society Magazine of January 1939 (file of appendices to the application, appendix 3, tome IV, folio 365); the South American Missionary Society Magazines of January and February 1941, supra note 49, folio 371, and testimony of Rodrigo Villagra Carron, supra note 17 56 Cf. Testimony of Tomás Dermott, supra note 24, folios 597 to 599; Socio-Anthropological Report on the Xákmok Kásek Community by the INDI Legal Department (file of appendices to the application, appendix 3, tome II, folio 841), and testimony of Maximiliano Ruíz, supra para 28. The Salazar Ranch was established around 1945, in the Central Chaco area, and at one time covered an area of 110,000 hectares. Following the gradual selling-off of pieces (approximately 71,142 hectares), it was reduced until it covered an area of around 26,434 hectares. (Cf. Eaton & Cía. S.A. “Frente a un pedido de expropiación”, file of attachments provided by the State at the public hearing, tome IX, attachment X, 3785 to 3811, and testimony of Roberto Carlos Eaton Kent before notary public (merits file, tome II, folios 659-664). 16