38 126. The implementation of this State project in indigenous territory allegedly would irreversibly modify the characteristics of the region, which in 1998, when the petition was filed, had a low population density and scarce urbanization. “Should the projected works be carried out, we the indigenous peoples that inhabit the region will be displaced from the territories we occupy since time immemorial, thus threatening our subsistence base, cutting off the hunting and gathering circuit areas that 117 extend from the Pilcomayo river to the forest.” 127. In the brief submitted on July 7, 1999 by the State of Argentina recognized the impact that the works would produce upon the indigenous communities, in the following terms: “the INAI considers that the construction of the International Bridge over the River Pilcomayo, Misión La Paz (Argentina) – Pozo Hondo (Paraguay), as well as other diverse roads and buildings, will significantly modify the way of life of the indigenous communities, and that it would have been appropriate to hold consultations, as well as a report on those works’ environmental impact. // For such reason the National Institute of Indigenous Affairs has offered its willingness to apply all of the available mechanisms for complying with the constitutional mandate of recognizing the communal possession and property of the lands occupied by the indigenous (Article 17, paragraph 17 of the National Constitution) and to develop mediation processes between the parties.” 128. On September 11, 1995, the attorney for the Lhaka Honhat Association filed an amparo lawsuit against the Province of Salta before the Provincial Court of Justice, asking it to order the immediate suspension of the construction works of the Misión La Paz – Pozo Hondo Bridge, as well as of any urbanization or road building work, or act of alteration of the indigenous reservation of Misión La Paz and/or of fiscal lots Nos. 55 and 14. As a precautionary measure, they requested an injunction to halt the construction works. This request was based on the fact that the construction of the international bridge and the surrounding urbanization had been undertaken without consulting the indigenous peoples, and without carrying out a prior environmental impact assessment, which violated the applicable constitutional and international legal provisions. The Court of Justice of Salta denied the requested injunction on November 8, 1995. Thereafter, the same Court of Justice of Salta rejected the amparo lawsuit on April 29, 1996. On May 14, 1996, the representatives of the Lhaka Honhat Association presented an extraordinary federal appeal, which was rejected. On February 27, 1997, the representatives of the Association presented a queja appeal before the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation against the rejection of the extraordinary federal appeal. This queja appeal was denied by the Supreme Court on December 10, 1997. 129. As this judicial process was being conducted, the Government of the Province of Salta continued and finalized the construction of the bridge. By the date of presentation of the petition to the IACHR in 1998, the construction of the planned roads and urbanization works was imminent. 130. Petitioners reported that on May 21, 1998, “personnel of the Public Works Directorate of the Province of Salta, under the supervision of an architect, arrived in Misión La Paz with the purpose of 118 carrying out measurements related to the future urbanization plan.” Consequently they presented a petition to the Governor of the Province of Salta on July 1, 1998, asking him to inform them about this, given that the facts would reveal an intention to continue with the works in the ancestral territory without evaluating their social and environmental impact. 131. The evidence indicates that the entire process of public tender, contracting and construction of the questioned public works was developed by the Provincial Government of Salta without the intervention but with the endorsement of the National Government. 132. In January 2000, the petitioners submitted photographs of houses and other buildings of different sizes, which they reported were to be used for a National Police post. The petitioners also informed the IACHR about “the local Government’s announcement of giving houses to the members of 117 Initial petition, received by the IACHR on August 4, 1998, and transmitted to the State on January 26, 1999. 118 Initial petition, received by the IACHR on August 4, 1998, and transmitted to the State on January 26, 1999.