53 181 established.” For the IACHR and the Inter-American Court, it is necessary that the legally guaranteed territorial rights of indigenous peoples are coupled with the adoption of the legislative and administrative measures and mechanisms to ensure the enjoyment of said rights in reality. Under Article 21, it is necessary for the legal and constitutional provisions that enshrine the right of members of indigenous communities to the property of their ancestral territory to be translated into the effective restitution and 182 protection of such territories. Even if there is a formal affirmation of the territorial and other rights of indigenous and tribal peoples, States’ failure to adopt the measures required to recognize and guarantee 183 said rights generates situations of uncertainty among the members of the communities. 188. In the specific case of the indigenous communities of Fiscal Lots 14 and 55, the IACHR considers that they had a legally recognized right to the property of their ancestral territory under the specific modality of a common shared title; as a consequence of the successive promulgation of the four above-referred provincial decrees, these communities had a consolidated and legally protected interest in their territory, which could only be disregarded or withdrawn, by means of a new decree or other legal act, and respecting the minimum guarantees established in the American Convention for cases of expropriation. By virtue of the existence of these provincial decrees, the relationship between these indigenous communities and the State authorities in the area of territorial property was not contractual, nor one of mere offers or governmental good will: it was a relationship mediated by legally created and recognized rights. The communities had, in turn, a right to the due application of the law. The lack of implementation of these decrees, with the ensuing lack of recognition of these created and recognized rights of access to the ancestral territory, constitutes a violation of Article 21 of the American Convention, in connection with Article 2 thereof. 189. The IACHR cannot fail to note that in 2005, in order to validate the unilateral imposition of its land regularization proposal for Fiscal Lots 14 and 55, the Provincial Government of Salta promoted, summoned and held a referendum or popular consultation with the general population of the Province, in which voters were asked, in an open and generic manner, whether they agreed or not with the objective of giving the lands in question to their current indigenous and non-indigenous inhabitants, and develop works of infrastructure. It is necessary to note that fundamental rights are inalienable and the majority cannot by vote repudiate or withdraw the rights of any segment of the society. The realization of the referendum constituted an improper use of a democratic mechanism, insofar as through its organization, the territorial rights of the indigenous population were subjected to the expression of the will of the general population, in order to defeat in this fashion the opposition that the governmental posture had raised within the indigenous communities. This modality of popular vote is not tantamount to a process of prior consultation of this land allocation decision. Prior consultation is a specific procedure which is clearly regulated by international human rights law. 2.2. The lack of provision of an effective and suitable procedure to have access to territorial property, because of the successive variations in the applicable norms and procedures 181 Corte IDH. Caso Comunidad Indígena Yakye Axa Vs. Paraguay. Fondo, Reparaciones y Costas. Sentencia 17 de junio de 2005. Serie C No. 125, párr. 143. 182 IACHR, Third Report on the Situation of Human Rights in Paraguay. Doc. OEA/Ser./L/VII.110, Doc. 52, March 9, 2001, Chapter IX, par. 50, Recommendation 1. 183 IACHR, Report No. 40/04, Case 12.053, Maya Indigenous Communities of the Toledo District (Belize), October 12, 2004, par. 170. Applying these rules, in the Awas Tingni case the Inter-American Court held that it “believes it necessary to make the rights recognized by the Nicaraguan Constitution and legislation effective, in accordance with the American Convention. Therefore, pursuant to Article 2 of the American Convention, the State must adopt in its domestic law the necessary legislative, administrative, or other measures to create an effective mechanism for delimitation and titling of the property of the members of the Awas Tingni Mayagna Community, in accordance with the customary law, values, customs and mores of that Community.” [Corte IDH. Caso de la Comunidad Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Vs. Nicaragua. Fondo, Reparaciones y Costas. Sentencia de 31 de agosto de 2001. Serie C No. 79, párr. 138.] In the same terms, in the case of the Sawhoyamaxa v. Paraguay, the Inter-American Court insisted that “merely abstract or legal recognition becomes meaningless in practice if the lands have not been physically delimited and surrendered because the adequate domestic measures necessary to secure effective use and enjoyment of said right by the members of the Sawhoyamaxa Community are lacking.” [Corte IDH. Caso Comunidad Indígena Sawhoyamaxa Vs. Paraguay. Fondo, Reparaciones y Costas. Sentencia de 29 de marzo de 2006. Serie C No. 146, párr. 143.]