64 Court’s jurisprudence constante, at this stage of the proceeding it is not possible to discuss matters that should have been addressed in previous stages and regarding which there has been a tacit waiver by the State of the objection of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.181 92. Regarding the effectiveness of the administrative proceeding for the communities to claim land, expert witness Enrique Castillo stated that the proceeding has yielded positive results in cases in which the landowners have been willing to negotiate transfer of ownership of the land claimed, but it has been clearly ineffective in cases in which negotiations with the owners have not been feasible (supra para. 38.b). 93. The State itself, in its reply to the application, pointed out that the legal system for protection of indigenous rights regarding their traditional lands is effective to attain a favorable response to the requests, insofar as there are no other rights also protected by the Constitution, international treaties and the legislation in force […] 94. The State also asserted that “[d]omestic legislation does not encompass a means to acquire the right to property based on a historical right” and added that “while there is a generic recognition of the traditional ownership right of indigenous peoples to their land[,] it is necessary for them to actually possess it and live as a community on that land.” 95. In this regard, Article 14(3) of ILO Convention No. 169, incorporated into Paraguayan domestic legislation by Law No. 234/93, provides that [a]dequate procedures shall be established within the national legal system to resolve land claims by the peoples concerned. 96. This international provision, in combination with Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention, places the State under the obligation to provide an effective means with due process guarantees to the members of the indigenous communities for them to claim traditional lands, as a guarantee of their right to communal property. 97. The procedures set forth in Law No. 854/63 and in Law No. 904/81 only allow the IBR and the INDI, respectively, to grant public lands, expropriate land that is not under rational use, or negotiate with the private owners, to give them to the indigenous communities, but when the private owners refuse to sell the land and prove that it is under rational use, the members of the indigenous communities have no effective administrative recourse to claim them. 98. Due all the above, the Court deems that the administrative proceeding followed before the IBR in collaboration with the INDI did not comply with the principle of a reasonable term embodied in the American Convention. The Court also 181 See Case of the Serrano Cruz Sisters. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of November 23, 2004. Series C No. 118, para. 135; Case of Tibi, supra note 179, para. 49, and Case of Herrera Ulloa. Judgment of July 2, 2004. Series C No. 107, para. 81.