128. The limited measures taken by the State were initiated either at the request of the Community or proposed by the private landowner. Nevertheless, none of them were determining factors for obtaining a definitive solution to the Community’s claim. Also, faced with the Community’s complaint that the land offered as an alternative to its traditional land was not suitable for settlement,148 neither the IBR nor the INDI asked for technical studies to be conducted to verify or disprove this, even though the said State institutions are legally obliged to provide “suitable land which is at least of equal quality” to the land occupied by the members of the Community.”149 129. In addition, the Court takes note of the long periods of inactivity in the case file. From June 1994, when it was forwarded to the INDI, the file does not show any measure taken by this agency to settle the action until July 1995, when the Community’s representatives requested information on the measures taken.150 Similarly, following a meeting between the parties in February 1996, arranged on the initiative of the members of the Community, no new measures were taken until 1998, when the private landowner offered the lands claimed;151 however, the State did not accept the offer. Subsequently, for the next six years, from 2000 to 2006, the only activities recorded in the file are offers made by the private landowners to the State authorities.152 An even more serious factor was that the administrative case file had to be reconstituted because the documents had been lost.153 the private landowners offered to sell the entire Salazar Ranch and, in 2000, they offered the property known as Cora’í “to whoever wanted to buy it”. In March 2003, Chortitzer Komitee offered to sell 3,293 hectares of the land claimed (Cf. Testimony of Roberto Carlos Eaton Kent, supra note 56, folio 662; press release of April 1, 2003, entitled “Menonitas ofrecen al INDI tierra reclamada por nativos” [Mennonites offer INDI, land claimed by indigenous peoples], file of appendices to the application, appendix 3, tome IV, folio 1583). Lastly, in 2004, Mr. Eaton offered the Community the Magallanes Ranch (Cf. Testimony of Roberto Carlos Eaton Kent, supra note 56, folio 660). 147 Cf. Site visit carried out by Pastor Cabanellas, supra note 62, folios 791 to 795, and Resolution P. No. 651 of the President of the IBR of August 21, 1992 (file of appendices to the application, appendix 3, tome III, folio 891). 148 After the expansion of the on-site visit, the Community’s lawyer requested a geological study of Retiro Winchester offered by the private landowner. However, it appears that there was no response to this request. In August 1993, during an on-site visit to another indigenous community to which the said lands had also been offered, a visit was made to Retiro Winchester which concluded that it was not suitable for settlement by the Community (Cf. Undated communication of the Community’s lawyer to the IBR, file of appendices to the application, appendix 3, tome III, folio 888, and report of the trip made to the Chaco on August 12, 13, 14, 1993, file of appendices to the application, appendix 3, tome III, folio 959 to 960). Meanwhile, the lands on the Magallanes Ranch were apparently inspected by INDI officials who concluded that they were not suitable for settlement by the Community (Cf. Minutes of the meeting of the Xákmok Kásek Community on August 12, 2004, file of appendices to the application, appendix 3, tome IV, folio 1286); testimony of Marcelino López, supra note 63, folio 587, and testimony of Clemente Dermott, supra note 63, folio 647). 149 Article 15 of Law No. 904/81, supra note 64, folio 2403. 150 The administrative file was forwarded to the INDI in June 1994, and the subsequent activity of which there is evidence is a request by the Community of July 1995, based on which a memorandum was issued and an anthropological study was requested. (Cf. Report 1474 of the Head of Indigenous Affairs of the IBR on June 20, 1994, file of appendices to the application, appendix 3, tome II, folio 730, and memorandum of the INDI President of August 22, 1995, supra note 119, folio 860). 151 After the members of the Community had offered to amend their request regarding the extension of land claimed (brief of the representatives of the Community of April 2, 1996, supra note 141), the following activity was the offer, in 1998, by the private landowners to sell the whole of the Salazar Ranch (supra note 146). 152 The only activities that appear in the case file were the offers made with regard to Koraí/Cora’í, the area of land claimed that was owned by Chortitzer Komitee, and the Magallanes Ranch (Cf. Testimony of Roberto Carlos Eaton Kent, supra note 146), until the requests for copies and the reconstitution of the case file by the Community in 2006 (Cf. Request of the representatives of the Community of July 6, 2006, 31