29. The State indicates that there is no lack of will or commitment on the part of the State to find a solution to the problems posed; “rather, in the case in question, the fact that the lands are privately owned and not government lands, in addition to the State’s difficult financial situation, are obstacles in the process, with the caveat that they are not insurmountable.” It adds, in this respect, that the State is under an obligation to indicate expressly “that it has not obstructed or interfered negatively in the administrative procedure, to the detriment of the legitimate rights of the Sawhoyamaxa Community, through any government institution or the agents thereof.” The Executive, through the INDI, made every effort on behalf of the expropriation of the area claimed by the Indigenous Community, with unfavorable results because the Legislative branch did not approve the expropriation. 30. The State indicates that the decision to pull out of the friendly settlement procedure that the members of the Sawhoyamaxa Community came to, advised by the non-governmental organization TIERRAVIVA “places at risk a definitive solution to the land problem, on failing to acknowledge the major efforts made by the State to vindicate the rights of the Sawhoyamaxa, in keeping with the mandate of the Constitution, the Convention, and other international and domestic legal instruments.” 31. In relation to the admissibility requirements, the State argues that the petition is not admissible for failure to exhaust domestic remedies and because some parts of the complaint do not set forth facts which, if true, would tend to establish a violation of rights, as per Article 34 of the Rules of Procedure. 32. With respect to the first argument, the State says that the petitioners did not exhaust domestic remedies and it identifies three remedies still pending: First, the institution in charge of processing the request for the land, i.e. the INDI, intends to present a new request to the new National Congress, which will be installed in July 2003, for the expropriation of the lands claimed by the Community. Second, the direct purchase of the property could eventually be negotiated with the owner, based on a reformulation of the claims regarding the extent of the land, safeguarding the interest of the Community. And third, the mechanism established in Convention 169 of the International Labor Organization, on Indigenous and Tribal Peoples, in conjunction with Articles 14 and 15 of Law 904/81, on the Status of the Indigenous Communities, remains to be exhausted. This latter mechanism would be invoked to request the prior, free, and express consent of the Community to a possible transfer to other lands of equal extent and quality. 33. In addition, it states that the Republic of Paraguay has an adequate legal framework for protecting the right or rights alleged to have been violated in this petition, specifically, the right to community property of the Sawhoyamaxa Community, and it bases its assertion on the fact that the institution in charge of processing the request for the lands sought by the Community, i.e. the INDI, at present continues to make efforts to purchase the property claimed by the Indigenous Community, and it argues that the delay in arriving at a final solution of the Community’s petition has been warranted for the above-indicated reasons. 34. With respect to the failure to set forth facts which, if true, would tend to a establish a violation of rights, and with respect to Article 2 of the Convention, the State indicates that all necessary measures of domestic law have been adopted to comply with the obligations derived from international human rights law, in particular with respect to rights of indigenous peoples, and in the case of the Sawhoyamaxa Community, the State adopted an adequate legal framework such that today, that community is in a position to claim its ancestral lands. As for the alleged violation of Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention, the State does not accept the petitioners attributing responsibility to the State, because in the administrative realm, all necessary steps for the Indigenous Community to be able to make the claim of possession and ownership of its ancestral lands have been taken effectively, nonetheless it has not been possible to render the claim effective due to budgetary problems and the refusal of the Legislative branch, in this case, to accept the request for expropriation on behalf of the Community. In addition, as regards the alleged violation of Article 21 of the Convention, it 6