31 113. In the petitioners’ view, Decree 4705/08 violates the indigenous communities’ rights, insofar as it does not allow for their participation or that of their advisors, it recognizes the Provincial Executing Unit (PEU) as the authority in charge of applying the Proposal, it subjects the transfer of the lands to agreements between the parties, without providing solutions for the cases in which such agreements are not achieved, and does not refer to the transfer of the lands in the modality of a single 107 title. On April 7, 2009, the Provincial Executing Unit sent the Lhaka Honhat Association a communication summoning its affiliated indigenous communities to a meeting on April 28, explaining that “the objective of the meeting is for the Indigenous Communities to express, through their traditional authorities and with full respect for their forms of organization, the manner in which they wish to 108 implement the transfer of the lands that they occupy in Fiscal Lots 55 and 14.” 114. On April 16, 2009, the representatives of the indigenous communities affiliated to the Lhaka Honhat Association responded this summons by the PEU, through a letter that was also forwarded to the IACHR, expressing its view that “the strategies for land distribution, titles to property or modes of transfer – which are the subjects of the meetings programmed and summoned by the technical team - are not viable, insofar as they detract from the demarcation and titling guidelines established by the standards set by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights’ jurisprudence.” At the same time Lhaka Honhat expressed it openness to dialogue in order to explore all possible routes to reach a just solution that 109 recognized its rights. 115. In relation to the same summons letter, the representatives of the petitioners argued that the PEU was inviting the communities to express their position on the form of adjudication of the lands, 110 “when it has not even established the area that the State has recognized;” and that “at the same time that the PEU was inviting the indigenous communities to the April 28 meeting, it was summoning the creole families who inhabit the area for April 29 and 30, in order to ‘advance in the presentation of the certificates required for granting the public deeds’, arguing that they would thus be able to receive the lands they inhabit, which correspond to the indigenous ancestral territory that is the subject-matter of the 111 claim.” For this reason they requested, once again, that the IACHR adopt a merits report in the present case. Report on the land regularization process, submitted by the Province of Salta in May, 2011. 116. On May 3, 2011, the State sent the IACHR a detailed report, drafted by the Provincial Executing Unit, on the “Process of land regularization in Fiscal Lots 55 and 14”, between October 2008 and April 2011. The contents of this report are of critical importance in understanding the current posture of the case. (a) First, the Provincial Government describes the legal provisions on the grounds of which the Provincial Executing Unit was established (Resolutions 65/06 and 804/07, and Decrees 2786/06 and 4705/08), and it explains that “the advances made in the land regularization process of Fiscal Lots 55 and 14, and in relation to the technical-environmental and methodological requirements to obtain the Agreements between the Parties (on the final location of the territories claimed by each sector), led the members of the PEU, together with the local organizations, to undertake tasks 107 Communications from the petitioners to the IACHR received on October 20 and November 14, 2008, transmitted to the State through note of February 2, 2009. 108 Letter attached to the communication by the petitioners to the IACHR received on May 13, 2009, and transmitted to the State by the IACHR on May 20, 2009. 109 Letter attached to the communication by the petitioners to the IACHR received on May 13, 2009, and transmitted to the State by the IACHR on May 20, 2009. 110 Letter attached to the communication by the petitioners to the IACHR received on May 13, 2009, and transmitted to the State by the IACHR on May 20, 2009. 111 Communication by the petitioners to the IACHR received on May 13, 2009, and transmitted to the State by the IACHR on May 20, 2009.