that the land is owned privately or that it is being rationally exploited, based on the considerations presented in paragraph 149 of this judgment. To do this would be to ignore this ruling and constitute a violation of the commitments assumed by Paraguay of its own free will. 285. The State has three years from notification of this judgment to return the traditional lands to the members of the Community. To this end, it must take a decision on the possibility of expropriation and, if appropriate, implement this. The State must carry out the necessary measures to achieve this objective within the said time frame. Moreover, within this time frame, the State can, if necessary, expedite the negotiations to purchase the corresponding lands. 286. If, for objective and well-founded reasons – which, the Court reiterates, cannot be, exclusively, the fact that the land is in private hands or being rationally exploited – the Paraguayan authorities decide to give priority to the right to property of the private entities rather than to the right to property of the members of the Community, it must provide the latter with alternate land within the traditional territory of their ancestors. The selection of this land must be made with the consensus of the members of the Community, in keeping with their own ways of making decisions. The Court reiterates that the offer of alternate lands will only be admissible when it has been adequately assessed, as indicated in this judgment, that the expropriation is not appropriate and that the negotiations to purchase the land have failed. 287. Following a well-founded request from the State, the Court may grant it an extension of one year to continue the respective domestic procedures commenced for the return of the traditional land. The request for an extension must be presented to the Court at least three months before the expiry of the three-year time limit established in paragraph 285 of this judgment. If the State does not present its request for an extension as indicated above, the Court will understand that it has waived its possibility of requesting it. The Court will reject any request that is timebarred. If the request for an extension is presented opportunely, the Court will forward it to the Commission and the representatives of the victims so that they can submit any observations they deem pertinent. The Court will decide whether or not to grant the extension, taking into account the reasons put forward by the State in its request, the observations of the Commission and the representatives, and the measures already taken by the State to comply with its obligation to deliver the land to the members of the Community. The Court will not grant the extension if, in its opinion, the State has not taken sufficient steps to comply with this measure of reparation. Lastly, the State must report in a precise and detailed manner every six months on the measures taken to return the traditional territory to the victims. 288. Based on the above, the Court orders that, if the three-year time frame established in this judgment expires, or if the extension granted in keeping with paragraph 287 expires or is denied by the Court, without the State having delivered the traditional lands or, if applicable, the alternate lands, in keeping with the provisions of paragraphs 283 to 286, it must pay the leaders of the Community, on behalf of its members, the sum of US$10,000.00 (ten thousand United States dollars) for each month of delay. The Court understands this reparation as compensation to the victims for the State’s failure to comply with the time limits established in this judgment and the resulting pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, so that it does not constitute compensation that replaces the return of the traditional or alternate lands to the members of the Community. 66