A/HRC/30/41/Add.1 33. In 2008, INDI recognized Tekoha Guasú as traditional Mbyá Guaraní land. 12 It later acknowledged the extent of the damage caused to this community as a result of the construction of the Yacyretá dam and confirmed the need to provide recompense for the “historic debt” owed to these peoples. 13 In February 2014, INDI obtained 495 hectares in the area in order to begin the process of consolidating Tekoha Guasú as compensation for the lands and islands that had been lost. For full reparation to be made for the harm done, it is important to conclude the process of allocating the titles to the reclaimed lands and of dealing with the requests put forward by indigenous organizations. 34. One important issue that is linked with redress in cases where the human rights of indigenous peoples have been violated is the implementation of the judgements handed down by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in the Yakyé Axa, Sawhoyamaxa and Xakmók Kasék cases. The Special Rapporteur has been made aware of the measures adopted to comply with those judgements, along with the limitations thereof. 35. The Court ruled that the State has an obligation to adopt the necessary legislative, administrative and other measures to establish an efficient mechanism that will enable indigenous peoples to reclaim their ancestral lands and thus exercise their property rights. This mechanism must also take into account these peoples ’ customary laws, values and customs. This obligation has not yet been discharged, and its fulfilment is essential if many of the indigenous land rights issues described in this report are to be resolved. 36. In respect of the provisions referring specifically to the petitioning communities in the above-mentioned judgements, the Government has reportedly taken some decisive steps towards returning these communities’ ancestral lands to them by providing the necessary funding and acquiring or expropriating lands of the Yakyé Axa and Sawhoyamaxa communities. However, the land titles have, for various reasons, still not been transferred, and these communities have therefore not been able to resettle these lands in a secure fashion. In the case of the Xakmók Kasék community, part of the lands due to be returned have still not been acquired. In all three cases, the compensation awarded by the Court — including, in this case, overdue interest payments — has been paid to the communities. With regard to the obligation to establish a community development programme and fund, in the first two cases the money was illegally withdrawn and the cases are awaiting trial. In the third case, the Government has not responded to requests from the community, even though the deadline was in 2011. 37. In all three cases, the Court ruled that certain social services should be provided to the communities. Although some services have been made available, there have been shortfalls in this respect, and supplies of food and water have been insufficient and erratic. The same kinds of problems have been reported in the case of communications services for the Xakmók Kasék community. Public dissemination of the judgements has been no more than partial, as is also the case with the identification programme in Sawhoyamaxa and Xakmók Kasék. 38. In view of the foregoing, it is clear that the measures taken pursuant to the judgements are — although substantive — not sufficient for them to be considered to have been entirely fulfilled, whether in the case of specific measures in respect of the complainants or the general measures outlined by the Court. __________________ 12 13 10/24 Resolution 1178/08. Resolution 23/2018. GE.15-13734