78. The petitioners argue that they have exhausted all available legal remedies within the domestic jurisdiction of the Argentine State in their quest to achieve recognition of the right to community property, under a legal form that would allow them to continue their socioeconomic pattern of subsistence and their special way of life, and in order as well to demand that the necessary social and environmental impact studies be performed for the design and execution of various public works projects that would affect their way of life, and that the exception of Article 46.2 of the Convention is therefore applicable because Argentine law does not provide any effective procedure for delimiting, demarcating and granting single title over indigenous lands. 79. In its initial response of July 7, 1999, the State argued that while the petitioners had pursued and exhausted all domestic remedies with respect to constitutional protection, they had not fulfilled the requirements of Article 46.1 of the American Convention. On this point, the State noted that there is another adequate channel for resolving such a complex situation, and that the petitioners should have attempted a procedure that would have addressed the substance of the issue. Subsequently, after the breakdown of the friendly settlement procedure in 2005, the National State argued that while this petition arose as a result of works related to the international bridge between Misión La Paz and Pozo Hondo, from the outset the dialogue had been dominated by the question of the distribution of State lands from lots 55 and 14 as the central issue on the indigenous side, yet on this point there had been no exhaustion of local jurisdiction. 80. On the other hand, the Province of Salta sent to the Commission a letter indicating that the petitioners had not exhausted all domestic remedies, for which reason the petition should be declared inadmissible. The Province argued that the federal Supreme Court, in its judgment of June 15, 2004, had quashed the ruling of the provincial Supreme Court and had ordered the Court of Salta to issue a new judgment taking into account the foregoing points, which to date had not been issued. 81. The Commission notes that the State has had many opportunities to resolve the substance of the matter, i.e. effective enforcement of the property rights of members of the Lhaka Honhat Association. The petitioners have filed several motions since 1999 to ensure that fiscal lots 14 and 55 be demarcated and awarded to the community, taking into account its way of life, but to date that right has not been recognized. To date, the judgment of the federal Supreme Court of June 15, 2004 has not been implemented by the Supreme