24 96. The Lhaka Honhat Association, in turn, contested this 98% result, considering that only 31% of the total number of voters registered in the electoral census had actually voted, and asserting that the Government of Salta had carried out manipulations and presented the information 97 in a misleading manner. Fourth phase of the indigenous territorial claim: new dialogue between the parties, adjustment of the Provincial Government’s proposal (2005-2007). 97. On September 9, 2005, in response to the National Government’s “Joint Declaration” document transmitted by the IACHR, the petitioners made observations on the land adjudication proposal presented by the Province of Salta, reiterating their demands for a single title in the name of all of the indigenous communities, the relocation of the creole population, and that any development or infrastructure projects be carried consistent with the rights to prior consultation and informed consent. They also restated their demand that wire fences be prohibited in the indigenous areas. 98. On October 11, 2005, the Provincial Government of Salta submitted a document to the IACHR in which it broadened and modified the proposal presented on March 2, 2005, stating that this had been done in response to the different observations submitted by the petitioners on September 9, 2005. The introduction of these modifications was preceded by new meetings and dialogues between the parties, specifically a meeting held on October 11 between representatives of the National and Provincial Governments, and representatives of the petitioners. This dialogue allowed the identification of points where the parties disagreed, as summarized by the Provincial Government in its note of October 11: “In the course of the meeting, the nine objections posed by the CELS lawyers in their brief of th September 9 were addressed. Useful points of coincidence were reached with regard to most of the objected items, and said agreements, incorporated into the original text of 28/II/05, constitute our improvement to the proposal for the adjudication of lands which is set forth in the annex to the present document. Notwithstanding the above, there was no agreement on the modality of the title to property to be granted over the lands that are to be adjudicated to the indigenous communities. Upset by this circumstance, the CELS lawyer and the representative of Lhaka Honhat refused to sign the minutes of the meeting and left the gathering, which had lasted almost six hours. The issue that emerged with regard to the title was as follows: the Province of Salta, in accordance with the provisions of its constitution, offers to adjudicate lands through titles at the names of the communities. These title can, eventually, be common for all of the communities who desire to have a joint title; and separate for those communities that wish to have an individual title. In addition to this, individual titles will be granted to the creoles who meet all of the requirements of the Province’s proposal. The CELS lawyer requires, on the other hand, the granting of a single title in forced community, even for those indigenous entities that do not wish to receive a title under such conditions. It is useful to take into account, as a context, that one of the milestones of this friendly settlement process was the recognition, by Lhaka Honhat, of the existence of other indigenous sector who were not represented by Lhaka Honhat. For this reason, in the Broadened Board, other indigenous representatives different from the petitioners participate. The Government of the Province of Salta is aware that the Proposal for land adjudication must encompass and harmonize the interests of all of the inhabitants of these lots, property of the Province, for which reason it cannot accept Lhaka Honhat’s claim, in the sense of making an imposed coercion, to the detriment of the sector that are not represented by that organization, which would become virtual hostages of Lhaka Honhat. This would entail a violation of fundamental human rights, the protection and defense of which is the very reason for the existence of the InterAmerican Commission on Human Rights. (…)” In the Annex to this communication, the Provincial Government set out in detail the modifications it had introduced to its proposal of March 2, 2005: 97 Petitioners’ note received on November 11, 2005, transmitted to the State on January 31, 2006.