42 afterwards, on May 12, 1997 the INDI sent back case file No. 7597/91 to the IBR, “for the purpose of speeding the legalization of the settlement of the Community.”86 73(39) As per report No. 1114 of June 4, 1997,87 on the 9th of the same month and year the IBR requested the General Office of Public Registries information on the general conditions of ownership of Plots Nos. 16784 and 16786 located in the Chaco District, the condemnation of which is requested.88 Due to the lack of reply to such request, on August 29 of that same year the Legal Counseling Department issued report No. 1793, whereby it recommended that the request for information be made once more to the General Office of Public Registries on the general conditions of ownership of the pieces of real estate in question “before and for the purpose of issuing a report on the merits of the case.”89 There is no evidence in the case file of a reply to the foregoing request. 73(40) On October 23, 1998 the legal representatives of the Kansol S.A. and Roswell Company S.A. corporations filed a brief and several appendixes before the IBR, whereby they requested said institution, inter alia, to deem administrative case file No. 7597/91 to be concluded and “therefore […] to forward a copy of the report to the Court of the First Instance in Civil Law, Fourth Rotation […] for the purpose of discharging the preliminary injunctions” issued against such corporations90 (infra para. 73(56)). 73(41) On November 11, 1998 the IBR forwarded the brief filed by the legal representatives of the Kansol S.A. and Roswell Company S.A. corporations to the INDI and the members of the Sawhoyamaxa Community in order to request them to file the comments they might deem relevant. 91 73(42) On November 19, 1998 the attorney for the Community filed a brief with the IBR, wherein he requested said institution to dismiss the request made by the owner corporations (supra para. 73(40)).92 For his part, the President of the Council of the INDI, on November 27, 1998, submitted the comments requested by the IBR, wherein he pointed out, inter alia, that the Legal Counseling Department of such institution was of the “opinion that ways and means should be deployed so that, 86 Cf. note P.C. No. 249/97 issued by the President of the Council of the INDI on May 12, 1997 (case file of appendixes to the answer to the complaint, appendix 1, folio 1502). 87 Cf. report No. 1114 issued by the Legal Advisor of the IBR on June 4, 1997 (case file of appendixes to the answer to the complaint, appendix 1, folio 1504). 88 Cf. note S.G. No. 328 of the Secretary-General of the IBR addressed to the Director-General of Public Registries on June 9, 1997 (case file of appendixes to the answer to the complaint, appendix 1, folio 1505). 89 Cf. report No. 1793 issued by the Legal Counseling Department of the IBR on August 29, 1997 (case file of appendixes to the answer to the complaint, appendix 1, folio 1520). 90 Cf. brief filed by the attorney for the firms Kansol S.A. and Roswell Company S.A. before the IBR on October 23, 1998 (case file of appendixes to the answer to the complaint, appendix 1, folios 1551 to 1554). 91 Cf. note S.G. No. 411 of the Secretary-General of the IBR addressed to the President of the INDI on November 11, 1998 (case file of appendixes to the answer to the complaint, appendix 1, folios 1573 and 1574). 92 Cf. brief filed by the Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community with the IBR on November 18, 1998 (case file of appendixes to the answer to the complaint, appendix 1, folios 1575 to 1576).