73. According to the INDI President, society in general “opposes ceding to the claims of the indigenous peoples in this way,” and “historically, the national Congress has opposed expropriations.”72 74. The life of the members of the Community within the Salazar Ranch was conditioned by restrictions to the use of the land because the lands they occupied were privately-owned. In particular, the members of the Community were prohibited from growing crops or possessing livestock.73 However, although they were settled on a small portion of their traditional territory, they roamed their lands74 and carried out certain activities such as hunting, even though this was difficult.75 Furthermore, many members of the Community worked on the Salazar Ranch.76 75. However, according to the testimony given before this Court, in recent years the members of the Community faced even more restrictions to their way of life and their mobility within the Salazar Ranch. Several deponents related that hunting had been prohibited completely;77 the landowner had hired private security guards to control their entrances, exits and movements,78 and they were unable to practice activities such as fishing and gathering food.79 76. In view of these difficulties, on April 16, 2005, the leaders of the Nepoxen, Saria, Tajamar Kabayu and Kenaten Communities, all of Angaité origin (hereinafter “the Angaité communities”) agreed to cede 1,500 hectares to the members of the Xákmok Kásek Community.80 The INDI had restored 15,113 hectares to those communities in 1997.81 In September 2005, the Community leaders asked the INDI to grant title to this portion of land to the Community.82 Subsequently, when accepting the title for this portion of land, the members of the Community “reaffirmed [their] folio 2381), and Opinion No. 18-2000-2001 of the Agrarian Reform and Rural Welfare Committee (file of appendices to the application, attachment 5, folio 2383). 72 Cf. Testimony of Lida Acuña, supra note 17, and testimony of Rodrigo Villagra Carron, supra note 17. 73 Cf. CEADUC Anthropological Report, supra note 56, folios 741 and 743, and testimony of Tomás Dermott, supra note 24, folio 598. 74 Cf. Testimony of Marcelino López, supra note 63, folio 580. 75 Cf. Testimony of Gerardo Larrosa before notary public on March 25, 2010 (merits file, tome II, folios 604 to 609), and Testimony of Tomás Dermott, supra note 24, folio 595). 76 Cf. Testimony of Maximiliano Ruíz, supra note 28; testimony of Marcelino López, supra note 28, folio 586, and CEADUC Report, supra note 55, folio 712 and 713. 77 Cf. Testimony of Marcelino López, supra note 63, folio 580; testimony of Gerardo Larrosa, supra note 75, folio 605; testimony of Lida Beatriz Acuña, supra note 17; testimony of Maximiliano Ruíz, supra note 28, and testimony of Antonia Ramírez, supra note 28 folio 1151. 78 Cf. Testimony of Gerardo Larrosa, supra note 75, folio 505; testimony of Marcelino López, supra note 63, folio 580; testimony of Antonia Ramírez, supra note 28, folios 1151, 1152 and 1156, and testimony of Clemente Dermott, supra note 63, folio 650. 79 Cf. Testimony of Gerardo Larrosa, supra note 75, folio 605, and testimony of Rodrigo Villagra Carron, supra note 17. 80 Cf. Agreement signed by the leaders of the communities of Nepoxen, Saria, Tajamar Kabayu, Kenaten, and Xákmok Kásek on April 16, 2005 (case file of documents provided by the State at the public hearing, tome IX, attachment VI, folios 3731 and 3732); testimony of Maximiliano Ruíz, supra note 28. The said communities were also known as the Cora-í (Cf. Testimony of Rodrigo Villagra Carron, supra note 17). 81 Cf. Testimony of Roberto Carlos Eaton Kent, supra note 56, folio 659, and testimony of Rodrigo Villagra Carron, supra note 17. 82 Cf. Letter from the Community of September 9, 2005, addressed to the INDI (case file of documents provided by the State at the public hearing, tome IX, attachment VI, folio 3730). 19