8. On September 17, 2001, the Commission received a brief from Mr. Roberto C. Eaton K. in response to the petition. On September 20, the Commission informed Mr. Eaton that the parties to the proceeding under the inter-American system of human rights were the presumed victims, on the one hand, and the respective State, on the other. For this reason, the Commission could not consider Mr. Eaton’s brief of September 17 as a response to the petition. On October 31, 2001, Mr. Eaton requested that the Commission receive his previous presentation on an amicus curie basis. 9. On November 13, 2001, at a working meeting during the 113th Regular Session of the Commission, the parties signed a “Friendly Settlement Agreement”. 10. On November 21, 2002, the petitioners informed the Commission of their decision to withdraw from the friendly settlement process. On December 10, notice of their decision was forwarded to the State, which was requested to present its admissibility arguments within 30 days. 11. On December 8, 2002 the Commission, through the Executive Secretariat, visited the Community Xakmok Kásek. 12. On January 15 and 16, 2003, the State sent additional information to the Commission. A. Friendly Settlement Process 13. In its first written response, the State requested the IACHR to mediate in order to help the parties reach a friendly settlement. On November 13, 2001, during the 113thRegular Session of the Commission, the parties signed a “Friendly Settlement Agreement” in which they agreed to initiate negotiations as part of the friendly settlement process. The parties held meetings in Asunción, Paraguay within the framework of this process. 14. On November 21, 2002, the petitioners informed the Commission of the decision of the Xakmok Kásek Community to withdraw from the process of direct negotiations with the government and to consider the friendly settlement agreement subscribed by the two parties on November 13, 2001 to be null and void. They based their decision on the lack of results obtained within the framework of the friendly settlement solution offered by the State of Paraguay, the time elapsed and the lack of concrete measures undertaken to remedy the stated violations. III. THE PARTIES’ POSITIONS A. The petitioners 15. The petitioners allege that the State of Paraguay has violated Articles 1(1), 2, 8(1), 21, and 25 of the Convention, to the detriment of the Xakmok Kásek del Pueblo Enxet Indigenous Community and its members, by failing to return to the Community part of its ancestral lands, whose ownership and property rights were disentitled without compensation of any sort through continuous acts of dispossession in the form of the confiscation and sale of its lands to third parties by the Government of Paraguay. The petitioners add that although the Constitution of Paraguay recognizes the right of indigenous peoples to develop their lifestyles in their own habitat,1 to date the State has failed to return said ancestral lands to the Indigenous Community. 1 Article 63 About Ethnic Identity The right of Indian peoples to preserve and to develop their ethnic identity in their respective habitat is hereby recognized and guaranteed. They also have the right to freely apply their systems of political, socioeconomic, cultural, and religious organization, and to voluntarily observe customary practices in their domestic coexistence as long as they do not violate the fundamental rights established by this Constitution. Indian customary rights will be taken into account when deciding conflicts of jurisdiction. 2