83 162. Furthermore, pursuant to the statements made by the representatives and Carlos Marecos, Community leader, the deaths of the indigenous people are not recorded and go unnoticed by the state authorities (supra para. 24.) Taking the aforesaid into account, and considering the fact that this Court is a human rights court where the pro personae principle prevails, and that the State cannot benefit from its deficiencies, the Court determines that it is seized with the deaths of Rosana López (supra para. 73(74)(2)) and of Wilfredo González (supra para. 73(74)(9).) * 163. The Court acknowledges the criterion of the State in the sense that it has not induced or encouraged the members of the Community to move and settle by the side of the road. However, the Court considers that there were powerful reasons for the members of the Community to abandon the estates where they lived and worked, due to the extremely hard physical and labor conditions they had to endure (supra para. 73(61) and (2).) Likewise, this argument is not enough for the State to disregard its duty to protect and guarantee the right to life of the alleged victims. It is necessary that the State proves that it carried out all necessary actions take the indigenous peoples from the roadside, and in the meantime, to adopt all necessary measures to reduce the risk that they were facing. 164. In that respect, the Court notes that the principal means available for the State to get the members of the Community out of the side of the road was to give them their traditional lands. However, as it has been shown in the previous chapters, the administrative proceedings before the INDI and the IBR did not offer any security of an effective resolution and proved to be slow and inefficient (supra paras. 93 to 112.) Hence, the Court determined that the State did not guarantee to the members of the Sawhoyamaxa Community the right to communal property and did not provide either guarantees or judicial protection within a reasonable time (supra paras. 112 and 114.) In other words, although the State did not take them to the side of the road, it is also true it did not adopt the adequate measures, through a quick and efficient administrative proceeding, to take them away and relocate them within their ancestral lands, where they could have used and enjoyed their natural resources, which resources are directly related to their survival capacity and the preservation of their ways of life.216 165. In that same sense, the State has pointed out that the indigenous people have refused to move to a provisional location while the issue is solved in the domestic jurisdiction. However, the Court does not find any evidentiary support for such an allegation. From the case file before the Court, it is not evident that specific offerings have been made, no indication has been made as to the possible locations to which the members of the Community could have been sent, or as to the distances form their traditional habitat, or as to any other details that may be taken into account to assess the feasibility of such offerings. 216 Cf. U.N. Doc. E/C. 12/1999/5. Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Substantive issues to be dealt with in the application of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Objection 12 (twentieth session,1999.) The Right to Food (Article 11.) para. 13, and U.N. Doc. HRI/GEN/1/Rev.7 at 117. Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. The Right to Water (Articles 11 and 12) of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. (twenty-ninth session, 2002,) para. 16. CHECKED AT UN OFF.PAGE