77 Indigenous peoples’ right to participate in the country’s economic, social, political, and cultural life is guaranteed, in accordance with their customs, with this Constitution and with national legislation. Article 66 – REGARDING EDUCATION AND ASSISTANCE The State will respect the cultural specificities of the indigenous peoples, especially regarding formal education. It will also assist them to avoid demographic regression, pillage of their habitat, environmental contamination, economic exploitation, and cultural alienation. 139. Article 3 of Law No. 43/89, in turn, states that the settlement of the indigenous communities encompasses a “physical area including the nucleus of dwellings, natural resources, crops, plantations, and their milieu, linked inasmuch as possible to their cultural tradition […]”. 140. Now, in the instant case there is no discussion of the right of the members of the indigenous communities, specifically of the Yakye Axa Community, to their territory, understanding what the land means for its members, nor is there any discussion of the fact that hunting, fishing and gathering are essential components of their culture. There is a consensus among the parties regarding domestic provisions that enshrine the territorial rights of the members of the indigenous communities. What is under discussion is the effective realization of those rights. 141. As pointed out above, Paraguay recognizes the right of the indigenous peoples to communal property, but in the instant case, the Court must establish whether it has made said right effective in reality and actual practice. It has been proven (supra para. 50.24) that the members of the Community began since 1993 to take the steps required by domestic legislation to claim the territory that they consider their own, and to date their territorial rights have not become effective. In its reply to the application the State, in fact, “recognize[d] that due to factual and legal circumstances it has not been able to satisfy this right to date.” 142. The State alleged that the right of the members of the Community to property has not become effective because their representatives have adopted an attitude that is “intransigent with regard to obtaining 18,000 [hectares] of Loma Verde estate” and because the Legislative “has relied on productivity or economic use of the land” as a criterion to reject expropriation of the territory claimed, and it is impossible for the State to confiscate land disregarding its current owners’ right to property. 143. The Court agrees with the State that both the private property of individuals and communal property of the members of the indigenous communities are protected by Article 21 of the American Convention. However, merely abstract or juridical recognition of indigenous lands, territories, or resources, is practically meaningless if the property is not physically delimited and established. 144. Now, when indigenous communal property and individual private property are in real or apparent contradiction, the American Convention itself and the jurisprudence of the Court provide guidelines to establish admissible restrictions to the enjoyment and exercise of those rights, that is: a) they must be established by law; b) they must be necessary; c) they must be proportional, and d) their purpose must be to attain a legitimate goal in a democratic society.