and ownership, including the prohibition to occupy the land, as well as the traditional activities of the members of the Community such as hunting, fishing and gathering.92 The law sanctions the breach of these prohibitions93 and assigns a park guard, who can be armed94 and make arrests.95 83. On July 31, 2008, the Community filed an action on unconstitutionality before the Supreme Court of Justice against the said nature reserve declaration.96 84. As a result of the filing of this action, the Prosecutor General’s Office was notified and, on October 2, 2008, she requested the suspension of the time limit for answering the action owing to the need to add the administrative file on the Community's land claim.97 The time limit was suspended on October 24, 2008, and even though the representatives of the Community submitted an authenticated copy of the administrative case file on December 14, 2009,98 the action is still suspended.99 2. The right to communal property 85. This Court has considered that the close relationship of indigenous peoples to their traditional lands and the natural resources relevant to their culture that are found there, as well as the intangible elements resulting from them, must be safeguarded under Article 21 of the American Convention.100 86. The Court has also taken into account that, among the indigenous peoples: There is a tradition in the communities with regard to a communal form of collective ownership of the land, in the sense that this does not belong to an individual, but rather to the group and its community. Because they exist, the indigenous peoples have the right to live freely on their own territories; the close relationships that the indigenous peoples maintain with the land must be recognized and understood as the essential basis of their cultures, their spiritual life, their integrity, and their economic survival. For the indigenous communities, their relationship with the land is not merely a matter of possession and production, but rather a material and spiritual element that they must enjoy fully, even in order to preserve their cultural legacy and transmit it to future generations.101 92 Cf. Article 24(b), 27 and 64 of Law No. 352/1994, supra note 91, folios 4537 to 4546; opinion of the Legal Department of the Secretariat of the Environment, supra note 90, folios 3382 to 3388, and brochure of the “Salazar Ranch” private nature reserve (file of attachments to the answer, attachment 3(1), tome VIII, folio 3469). 93 Cf. Article 58 of Law No. 352/1994, supra note 91, folios 4543 and 4544. 94 Cf. Article 44 of Law No. 352/1994, supra note 91, folio 4541. 95 Cf. Article 45 of Law No. 352/1994, supra note 91, folio 4541. 96 Cf. Action on unconstitutionality filed by the Community, supra note 88, folios 3415 to 3427. 97 Request to suspend the time limit for answering the action filed before the Supreme Court of Justice (file of attachments to the answer to the application, attachment 1(8), tome VIII, folio 3428). 98 Cf. Brief of the representatives of December 14, 2009, addressed to the Constitutional Chamber (file of attachments to the answer, attachment 1(9), tome VIII, folio 3435). 99 Cf. Note S.J.I. No. 211 of May 21, 2010, signed by Judicial Secretary I of the Supreme Court of Justice and addressed to the Human Rights Directorate of the Supreme Court of Justice (file of attachments to the State’s final arguments, attachment 24, tome VIII, folio 4593). 100 Cf. Case of the Yakye Axa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay, supra note 5, para. 137; Case of the Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay, supra note 20, para. 118, and Case of the Saramaka People v. Suriname, supra note 16, para. 88. 101 Cf. Case of the Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community v. Nicaragua. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 31, 2001. Series C No. 79, para. 149; Case of the Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous 21