55 human rights are in full force for their use in search of justice. The State cannot substitute the will of the parties in the process of legally claiming their rights nor can it instruct private parties regarding the suitable legal means to claim their rights; b) in the instant case the land claim was processed before the agency in charge of administration of said resources, which constitutes evidence of exercise of guarantees and of the administrative protection set forth in Paraguayan legislation. Administrative Law allows all types of petitions for the specialized institutions to issue rulings by means of decrees, orders, ordinances, and so forth. It is also possible to appeal these rulings by means of the body established by law in each case, and subsequently before the Administrative Law Court; c) the representatives of the Community did not state and defend their legitimate rights in the most appropriate way before domestic bodies. The actions undertaken were inappropriate, untimely, or negligent. The amparo remedy filed in this case was rejected by two instances because it was timebarred, the precautionary measures were revoked because the Judge deemed that they would make it impossible for the property claimed to continue being rationally used by its owners, and the constitutional motion was found to be discontinued, that is, the legal action lapsed for lack of procedural initiative of the interested party; d) according to domestic law and domestic justice, the Yakye Axa Community had neither possession nor ownership of the land they claim. The Community did not even have the minimum number of members required by law to have access to and justify an ancestral property regarding the rights that domestic legislation acknowledges and protects in the case of private property, whose owners, in accordance with administrative and judicial procedures, have defended these rights and have attained judicial protection under domestic venue; e) the members of the Community have sought to assert a historically recognized possession that legally has, nevertheless, been stated inappropriately. The members of the Yakye Axa Community have been manipulated to obtain rights that the State explicitly acknowledges but that must be asserted on reasonable legal grounds and factual background; f) the right to ancestral property should have been discussed in a regular trial, to establish the paramount right claimed. If they had resorted to the appropriate procedure, the result would have established a legal precedent for similar cases of land claims by indigenous communities; g) the fact that the lands were under rational use, which was the basis for rejection of the expropriation requested by the Executive, was never disputed under administrative law jurisdiction; h) there is no provision that denies or forbids asking the Legislative, once again, to expropriate a property claimed by the Community or any other property, especially bearing in mind that the refusal to expropriate took place in a previous legislative period;