indigenous community.122 Moreover, Sergio Iván Braticevic does not deny that the lands claimed are more suitable than other options. Indeed, the expert witness expressly stated that “priority should be given to the portion of land [claimed]” and that, if the result of the action on unconstitutionality against the private natural reserve declaration was not favorable and “all the legal alternatives were exhausted,” only then should recourse be made to lands other than the ones claimed.123 105. Similarly, witness Villagra Carron explained that the lands claimed were requested because “there is a specific connection to cemeteries on those lands, because the Sanapaná ancestors had several villages in that area, and because those lands are more appropriate for settling, [since] […] between Xákmok Kásek and Mompey Sensap there is significant biological diversity that would provide support for the families.”124 106. In addition to the above, the Court notes that the State has not contested the alleged suitability of the land claimed. The State’s defense has been limited to indicating that those lands cannot be granted to the Community – a matter that will be examined infra – without denying the above. Also, the State merely insists on granting alternate lands, and fails to contest the affirmations of the Community, its representatives, and the Commission. * * * 107. The Court therefore considers that, based on the history of the occupation and displacement throughout the territory by the members and ancestors of the Community, the place names in the area that were given by its members, the conclusions of the technical studies carried out in this regard, and the considerations regarding the suitability of the said lands within the traditional territory, the 10,700 hectares around Retiro Primero or Mompey Sensap and Retiro Kuñataí or Makha Mompena claimed by the Community are its traditional lands and, according to those technical studies, are the most suitable for its settlement. 2.1.2. Ownership of the lands claimed and recognition of the communal property its requirement for 108. Regarding the ownership of the lands claimed, the Commission considers that the State is obliged to recognize and respond to the Community’s claim, “even when it does not have full possession of them and they are in private hands.” The representatives argued that the Community “has maintained a form of partial possession of the lands claimed and their surroundings as regards access to the natural resources.” They added that the members of the Community had carried out their traditional activities on the lands claimed “since before the transfer of the lands to Eaton y Cía., until early 2008, when they were prohibited from carrying out those activities owing to the establishment of the private [nature] reserve.” The State maintained that “the petitioners do not have the property duly registered in the Property Registry, and they do not own the property in question.” 122 Cf. Expert testimony of Antonio Spiridinoff, supra note 68, folio 615. 123 Cf. Expert testimony of Sergio Iván Braticevic, supra note 17, folio 4248. 124 Testimony of Rodrigo Villagra Carron, supra note 17. 26