3 9. Having said this, the Court recalls it is an international Court and its duty is not to decide on domestic conflicts regarding the property of lands that are part of the States’ national territory. In this sense, the Court has stated in its case law that it cannot decide that the property rights to traditional lands of the members of the indigenous or tribal Communities prevail over the right to property of private owners or vice versa, since the Court is not a domestic judicial authority with jurisdiction to decide disputes among private parties, since this power is vested exclusively in the State. 5 10. Even though the main objectives of the judgments issued by the Court are the assessment regarding the violation or not of the human rights enshrined in the American Convention and the resolution of the controversies brought before it, an additional or supplementary objective is the prevention of possible conflicts between the different inhabitants of the regions in dispute. In order to achieve these objectives, it is necessary that the factual circumstances be verified prior to the submission of the case before the Court, especially when dealing with human rights claims related to property rights and, in general, matters regarding lands, so that the information presented in the Merits Report clearly indicates the location of those lands and the distinctive features of its possession, use, and property by the indigenous or tribal Community and third parties, as well as the conflicts derived from this. (ii) The importance of the diligence in situ 11. When there isn’t a clarity such on the factual situation of the case that will allow the Court to issue its judgment adequately taking into consideration that situation, it becomes more important to gather the necessary evidence in that regard. In this sense, I want to point out the convenience of the visits in situ the Court has carried out. These visits allow the Court to obtain first-hand knowledge of the distinctive features of the locations in dispute and their locality. Specifically, the opportunity the Court has through these visits to acquire information that could only be obtained through this mechanism is very valuable, including information on the residents and authorities of these lands. In this sense, it is important to point out the importance of the principle of immediacy, which does not have to be reduced to the statements received by the Court at public hearings, especially in cases as complex as this one. 12. For the first time in the Case of the Kichwa Indigenous People of Sarayaku v. Ecuador, the Court carried out a diligence in situ whose main purpose was to take measures aimed at obtaining additional information about the situation of the presumed victims and the places where some of the alleged events took place. 6 13. In this case, the State had requested a diligence be carried out in the following terms: “in order to facilitate adjudication of the case, […] to have a fair judgment according to the legal reality, […] it carry out an inspection in loco to verify respect to the precautionary measures ordered by the Inter-American Commission, […] the Case of the Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of March 29, 2006. Series C No. 146, para. 136. Similarly, the Court has stated that this does not mean that every time there is a conflict between the territorial interests of private individuals or of the State and those of the members of the indigenous communities, the latter must prevail over the former. Case of the Yakye Axa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of June 17, 2005. Series C No. 125, para. 149. 5 Cfr. Case of the Kichwa Indigenous People v. Ecuador. Merits and reparations. Judgment of June 27, 2012. Series C No. 245, para. 20. 6