63 a) name of the community; list of families and family members, their ages, civil status and gender; b) geographical location of the community, if settled on a permanent basis, or otherwise, location of most frequently used areas; and c) names of the leaders of the community and evidence of their appointment. Article 10.- The Institute, within a maximum of thirty days, will request the Executive, through the Ministry of National Defense, the recognition of legal personality. Article 11.- The Institute will register the Executive Order recognizing the legal personality of an Indigenous Community in the Registro Nacional de Comunidades (Communities National Registry) and shall issue an authenticated copy thereof for the interested parties. […] Article 19.- The community may grant their members the use of plots of land as needed. If the lands are left vacant, the community shall annul said concession. Article 20.- Upon recognition of the legal personality of an indigenous community, title to the lands shall be conveyed to said community at no cost, on a pro indiviso basis and free from any liens and encumbrances. Said title shall be registered in the Registro Agrario [Agrarian Register,] in the Registro General de la Propiedad [General Property Register] and the Registro Nacional de Comunidades Indígenas [Indigenous Communities National Registry.] The deed conveying title shall be executed under the provisions of Article 17 hereof. […] Article 27.- Upon recognition of the legal personality of an indigenous community, the State shall transfer adequate lands for its benefit, under the provisions of Article 19 hereof. 88. The Court has ascertained that a petition for recognition of what in Paraguay is known as “legal personality” of the Sawhoyamaxa Community was filed with the INDI on September 7, 1993 (supra para. 87) and that the Executive Order recognizing said personality was issued on July 21, 1998, that is to say, four years, ten months and fourteen days later (supra para. 73(15)). 89. The foregoing being considered, and taking into account that said proceedings are not complex and that the State has not justified said delay, the Court deems it to be out of proportion and a violation of the right to be heard in a reasonable time as provided for in Article 8(1) of the American Convention. iii) Injunctions 90. As mentioned in the Chapter on Proven Facts of the instant Judgment, the Court has ascertained that domestic judicial authorities granted injunctions affecting the claimed area. The first injunction was ordered on February 16, 1994 by the Judge of First Instance in Civil and Business Law Matters of the Fourth Rotation (supra para. 73(55)). However, such measures were addressed to two companies that did not have title to the claimed area, for which reason, the Judge decided to discharge them (supra para. 73(57)). Afterwards, on July 5, 1994, the same Judge ordered a new injunction against those actually holding title to the lands (supra para. 73(57)). This Court does not know neither the date on which title to the lands was conveyed to those who were the owners by that time, nor whether the injunctions have been discharged or not, and if so, the precise date on which said discharge would have occurred is also unknown. Finally, on July 23, 2003, upon the INDI’s