21 89 pursuit of a solution. On August 18, 1999, the petitioners responded to this offer by the State, accepting to initiate a mediation process, but conditioning such initiation to the suspension of the contested public 90 works and other connected requirements. The IACHR communicated this brief to the State on August st th 24, 1999. The following October 1 , the IACHR held a working meeting during its 104 ordinary period of sessions. 84. Subsequently until the year 2005, a long and complex process of negotiation took place between the Lhaka Honhat Association, the Provincial Government and the National Government. Numerous working meetings and hearings were held at the IACHR, as well as meetings between the parties reported afterwards to the IACHR. The IACHR held hearings on this case, as well as working meetings with the parties, during the following periods of sessions: 104 (October 1, 1999), 108 (October 12, 2000), 110 (March 1, 2001), 113 (November 15, 2001), 117 (February 28, 2003), 119 (March 5, 2004), 121 (October 26, 2004), 122 (March 2, 2005), 123 (October 17, 2005), 131 (March 11, 2008) and 137 (November 2, 2009). The IACHR was also represented in working meetings between the parties held st in the cities of Buenos Aires and Salta on November 1 , 2000, August 5, 2002, August 28, 2003, December 7, 2006, and April 27, 2011. The petitioners did not attend this last working meeting. Third phase of the indigenous territorial claim: the conduct of a popular consultation. 85. On July 14, 2005, after the breakdown of the friendly settlement process, the Senate and Chamber of Deputies of the Province of Salta approved Law No. 7352, in which they called for a referendum in the department of Rivadavia in order to define the transfer of the lands to the inhabitants of 91 Fiscal Lots 14 and 55. 86. In a communication to the IACHR received on July 22, 2005, the petitioners stated that the popular consultation had been ordered to include third parties who were alien to the conflict. 87. On August 11, 2005, the Lhaka Honhat Association filed a lawsuit (acción declarativa de certeza) before the Supreme Court of Justice of the Argentinean Nation against the law on the referendum, seeking a declaration of unconstitutionality. Through judgment of September 27, 2005, the 89 Thus, in a report presented on July 7, 1999, the State of Argentina, in response to the initial petition, indicated that the National Institute of Indigenous Affairs had offered its mediation. 90 In the petitioners’ words, “This party accepts to initiate a process of mediation between the petitioners and the State, under the conduction of the INAI, in order to achieve –as held by the State- compliance with the constitutional imperative of recognizing the communal possession and property of the lands occupied by the indigenous communities. // However, the Lhaka Honhat Association considers that, in order for such mediation to attain its proponed objective, and for the agreement to become effective, it is necessary for the Government to formally commit itself to abstain from modifying the factual situation that exists at the outset of the mediation. That is to say, that the Government assume a prior commitment, as a condition for the initiation of the mediation: the interruption of the public works that gave rise to the present case. (…) In the same sense the petitioners consider it indispensable for the initiation of the mediation that the Government abstains from providing any new houses, whether it is within the territory that is the subject-matter of the negotiation, or to the persons who are represented by the petitioner Association. As proven in Annex 3, the Government of the Province of Salta has projected to provide houses to persons who belong to the indigenous communities, which runs counter to the purpose of the mediation that is to be initiated, namely, the recognition of the communal possession and property of the lands. // On the other hand, this party considers it vitally important, for the initiation of the mediation, for the State to inform the petitioners with precision which are the Works that are currently being executed, given that –as proven by the above-referred annexes (news articles)- the petitioners have found out about the existence of a project to build a gas pipeline within the geographical scope of the mediation.” In this same brief, the petitioners requested the IACHR to participate through a representative in the negotiation process; they also requested precautionary measures, in the sense of not carrying out any further construction works in the territory that would be the subject-matter of the mediation, and that no individual houses were provided to the members of the communities represented by the Association. 91 The text of the Law is as follows: “Article 1. The electorate of the Department of Rivadavia is hereby summonned, in the terms of Article 60 of the Provincial Constitution, to manifest themselves answering yes or no, on whether it is their will for the lands that appertain to Fiscal Lots 55 and 14 to be transferred to their current occupiers, both aboriginal and creole, executing the necessary infrastructure works. // Art. 2. The consultation to which the present law refers, shall be carried out at the same time as the elections for national and provincial legislators, to be held on October 23, 2005. // Art. 3. The Referendum summoned by the present law, shall comply with the legal provisions applied to the election of provincial legislators. // Art. 4. The Executive Power must disseminate the present law in the languages of the different communities. // Art. 5. Notification shall be given to the Executive Power.”