22 Supreme Court of Justice rejected the lawsuit, considering that it had no jurisdiction to rule on acts of the provincial legal system. 88. On August 23, 2005, the National Government submitted a report to the IACHR explaining that the Provincial Government’s decision had posed obstacles to the protracted friendly settlement process, for which reason the national authorities had attempted to persuade the provincial authorities to reconsider their position. 89. On August 23, 2005, the IACHR received a report by the State Attorney for the Province of Salta with observations on different aspects of the case. The Provincial Government held that there was no threat to the indigenous rights, but on the contrary, the Provincial Government sought to adopt measures to make them effective, allowing them access to the land and participation in the scheduled referendum; in fact, it argued that the referendum was a valid modality to enable the informed participation of indigenous peoples as a form of consultation under ILO Convention 169, so this was a 92 democratic solution to the problem. The Provincial Government also underscored the socio-economic importance of the infrastructure works to be undertaken, for the welfare of the population of Fiscal Lots 14 and 55. 90. The IACHR communicated the National and Provincial Governments’ responses, through th note of September 15, 2005. On September 30 , the observations of the petitioners in reply to those State responses were received. They explained that the Provincial Government had undertaken a number of actions aimed at undermining the representativity of the Lhaka Honhat Association and 93 promote the disaffiliation of its members, with the aim of promoting the referendum. 91. On September 21, 2005, the National Government submitted to the IACHR a document entitled “Joint Declaration of the National Government authorities that participate in the Broadened Board 92 In the Provincial Government’s words, “it is not true that the rights of indigenous peoples established in Article 75, par. 17 of the National Constitution, Art. 15 of the Provincial Constitution or the American Convention on Human Rights are being violated. // A simple reading of the provisions cited by the claimant, proves that the Provincial Government is not violating them, but doing what is necessary to enforce them, with the modality established in Article 15, par. 11 of the Provincial Constitution, which orders, in relation to fiscal lands, to find consensual solutions with the indigenous and non-indigenous inhabitants, generating mechanisms for those inhabitants’ effective participation. The referendum is precisely ‘the mechanism’ for effective participation. The members of the Lhaka Honhat Association will be able to participate intervening in the campaign prior to the referendum, and thereafter voting in it. This consultation mechanism is, in addition, established in ILO Convention 169. (…) The popular consultation established by Law No. 7352 of the Province of Salta does not violate any provision of ILO Convention 169; on the contrary, it executes them. (…) It is false that Provincial Law 7352, which summons a referendum in order to define the policy of adjudication of the lands of Fiscal Ltos 55 and 14 to its indigenous and creole inhabitants, is contrary to the National Constitution and International Agreements. // Law No. 7352 of the Province of Salta sought to obtain, for the land adjudication decisions, the direct and unmediated endorsement of the people who inhabit the area. (…) It is unquestionable that the summoning of a referendum is the most democratic and transparent means for the land adjudication to consult the real will and the authentic interests of the inhabitants, which would otherwise run the risk of being frustrated as a result of closed-door negotiations, with the interventions of lawyers and public officials, and of entities whose true representativeness should be ratified in the ballot boxes. (…) In any case, nothing prevents the members of Lhaka Honhat from concurring to the referendum and there expressing their opinion.” 93 The petitioners explained that “during the last months, the Provincial Government has undertaken an aggressive defamation campaign to destabilize Lhaka Honhat and in favor of the referendum. // Among other things, the Provincial Government, without saying so expressly, promoted an amparo lawsuit before the provincial courts, through a chief of a community that is not part of the conflict of Lots 55 and 14 (well known for his political affinity to the Government). The judicial resolution, which granted the lawsuit, ordered Lhaka Honhat to abstain ‘from carrying out acts tending to undermine in any way the right to vote in the referendum summoned for October 23, 2005’. The IACHR must take note of the seriousness of this matter, because the illegitimate action that Lhaka Honhat supposedly carried out was to present a petition to the IACHR. (…) On the other hand, the provincial government published, in the local El Tribuno newspaper (owned by the brother of the Governor Juan Carlos Romero), several press notes with the same objective. In addition, representatives of the Provincial Executive are permanently traveling to the conflict area and hold political meetings in favor of the referendum, where the Lhaka Honhat Association and its technical and legal advisors are violently insulted. They also make constant interventions through the radio stations of the area, where they attack the Association and its representatives, advisors and the IACHR, inter alia”. They also reported that the provincial government was distributing written flyers in the area, in a dialect of the Wichí language which is incomprehensible for the inhabitants of the area themselves. In the petitioners’ opinion, these are “acts promoted by the province of Salta to divide the indigenous communities and disregard their legitimately designated authorities. (…) the provincial government is one step away from achieving its objective of breaking down the organizational structure through which the indigenous communities decided to be represented (in exercise of specific rights expressly recognized them by human rights treaties).”