E/CN.4/2006/78 page 15 58. With regard to Argentina, there are reports of numerous problems in recognizing the indigenous peoples; they involve mainly the protracted, complicated procedures for acquiring legal personality, which is essential if peoples are to be able to defend their rights in court or before the public administration. It appears that the National Institute of Indigenous Affairs (INAI) recognizes a mere 15 per cent of 850 indigenous communities. There are reports that legal personality granted at the provincial level is worthless at the national level, barring the existence of special agreements, and that only 4 provinces out of the 20 with indigenous peoples have approved these agreements. There are also complaints about failure to consult the indigenous peoples in accordance with the 1994 constitutional reform. The Argentine Government maintains in its report that the legislation must be brought into line with the legal reality established by the 1994 constitutional reform relating to the regulation of land ownership rights where indigenous communities are concerned. Another pressing problem is that of land disputes and the inconsistency between the Civil Code’s regulation of property rights and the rights enshrined in the Convention. 59. The Committee of Experts heard a complaint by the indigenous community of Olmos (Peru) of wrongful dispossession of ancestral lands, which the Government claimed as State property in order to implement a hydroelectric project without compensating the indigenous community in any way. The Committee decided that the Convention protected lands traditionally occupied by indigenous peoples, and requested the Government to take the appropriate measures to enable the community to assert effectively its claim to the lands in question. This case also illustrates the inconsistency between land rights protected by the Convention and the ownership system provided for in the Civil Code and in the legislation deriving therefrom. In another instance concerning the lands of a coastal indigenous community, the Committee found a national law to be inconsistent with Convention No. 169 in that it breached the communities’ autonomy and forced them to divide their lands up into individual holdings. 60. ILO experience regarding indigenous and tribal peoples shows that when collectively owned indigenous lands are divided up and allotted to private individuals or third parties, the exercise of the indigenous communities’ rights tends to be weakened and, by and large, they end up losing all or much of their lands with the resultant general reduction of the resources at their disposal when they hold their lands collectively. 61. Guatemala has achieved substantial progress with the adoption of a package of legal provisions that in theory make possible the recognition and institutionalization of indigenous peoples’ participation and consultation. There have been reforms of the Law on Urban and Rural Development Councils, the Municipal Code, the Law on Indigenous Languages and the Anti-Discrimination Act. Also established were an Indigenous Affairs Commission in the Supreme Court, a Presidential Commission to Combat Discrimination and Racism against Indigenous Peoples in Guatemala, an Office for the Defence of Indigenous Peoples in the Office of the Human Rights Procurator, and other units in the public administration and budget allocations for institutions devoted to the defence of the rights of the indigenous peoples. 62. However, the Government notes that the measures taken have thus far been insufficient to eliminate inequality and the marginalization and exclusion of the indigenous peoples. The Government points out that although the groups in power explain that measures have been adopted for eliminating racism and exclusion on the basis of the alleged principle of equality,