27 Taking as a referente the data of the Surrey made in 1984 and 1993 (CFI Report and former Ministry of Social Welfare of the Province of Salta), in Fiscal Lots 55 and 14 there are 471 creole posts and 36 aboriginal communities, therefore: On the grounds of this data, the total percentage of implementation would be 88.95%. For aboriginal communities it is a 66.66% (24/36), and for the creoles it is of 90.65% (427/471), assuming that all of the petitions are valid. The next steps to be adopted by the PEU once the deadline for reception of requests has expired, whall be the following: - Analysis of each one of the received requests, establishing in each case whether they comply with the requirements to prove their rights. - Periodically report the advances in this process to all of the interested parties. - Agreements between the parties (that submitted requests complying with all of the requirements). - Cartographic identification of the location of creole families, areas of traditional use of each community, and areas of superposition of creoles and aboriginal communities. - Any other action tending to materialize the Province’s proposal, focusing on the objective of consolidating agreements between the parties.” 103. The Provincial Government attached to this report copies of several relevant documents. In particular, it provided copies of the request for land regularization forms presented by the inhabitants of Fiscal Lots 55 and 14. The IACHR notes that two different forms were distributed – one for the creole population and another for the indigenous population. A total of 147 copies of forms were provided to the 101 IACHR, of which 14 were presented by indigenous communities. 104. In a note received on September 7, 2006, the National Government submitted to the IACHR a draft alternative proposal for the distribution of the fiscal lands of Lots 14 and 55. The National State’s alternative proposal reflects the manner in which the federal governmental authorities visualized and described the existing conflict between the Lhaka Honhat Association and the provincial authorities; likewise, it includes historic, socioeconomic and contextual information which is relevant for an adequate comprehension of the situation. This alternative proposal was not, however, implemented nor adopted formally by the parties 105. In a communication received on September 15, 2006, the petitioners denounced the actions of implementation of the Salta Government’s proposal as being “designed to finalize breaking and dividing the indigenous organization.” In addition, the communication complained of “the absolute discretionality and arbitrariness with which the transfer of lands is being manipulated by the provincial 102 government...” 106. On October 21, 2006, the IACHR approved Admissibility Report No. 78/06, in which it declared the petition admissible as regards the alleged violations of the rights protected by Articles 8(1), 13 in connection with 23, 21 and 25 of the American Convention, as related to the general obligations established in Articles 1 and 2 of said instrument. At the moment of making a preliminary characterization of the facts reported by the petitioners, and the object of the process, the IACHR included the topic of access to the ancestral territory; consequently, the IACHR referred to the ”petitioners' complaints about the failure of the Province of Salta to implement a policy to demarcate and award title to lands in a legal form that respects the communities' way of life”. It was also in relation to this territorial issue that the IACHR analyzed the admissibility requirements of the petition. 101 These indigenous communities were: (i) Las Mojarras, represented by Mr. José García, (ii) Bella Vista, represented by Mr. Galiano Basilio, (iii) El Pin Pin, represented by Mr. Pascual Pastor, chief, (iv) Pozo La China, represented by Mr. Juan Negro, (v) Pozo El Toro, represented by Mr. Brígido Pastor, chief, and Eduardo Pastor, (vi) Pozo El Bravo, represented by Mr. Carlos Jaime, (vii) Pozo El Toro, represented by Mr. David Pastor, (viii) Madre Esperanza, represented by Mr. Mario Raúl Menéndez, (ix) Molathati 3, represented by Mr. Juan Nicacio Miranda, (x) Nueva Esperanza, represented by Mr. Humberto Chene, cacique, (xi) San Luis, represented by Mr. Andrés Amaya, cacique, (xii) Alto La Sierra, represented by the Wichí Asociation “Inhate”, and by its chief, David Maza, (xiii) Monte Carmelo, represented by Mr. Francisco Gómez. And (xiv) La Merced Vieja, represented by Mr. Luis Lescano, chief. 102 Communication by the petitioners to the IACHR, received on September 15, 2006, and transmitted to the State on September 29, 2006.