66 Congress, the negotiated direct purchase with the private owners of the claimed lands, and the negotiations with the members of the Community for the purpose of conveying to them lands of the same extension and quality; in other words, of such actions as belong in administrative and legislative proceedings. 101. Therefore, the Court dismisses this argument of the State on the grounds of its being time barred. * 102. With respect to the effectiveness of the land claim administrative procedure for indigenous communities in Paraguay, the Court considered in a previous case that said procedure was “overtly ineffective,” because: it only allows[…] the IBR and the INDI[…] to dispose of state lands, to condemn irrationally exploited lands and to negotiate with private owners the surrender of lands to indigenous communities, but every time private owners refuse to sell the lands and prove that the lands are being rationally exploited, the members of the indigenous communities lack an effective administrative remedy to claim them.180 103. Likewise, expert witness Augusto Fogel, proposed by the State in the instant case: gave evidence of loopholes in Paraguayan laws because sufficient rules and regulations to make the National Constitution operative are still lacking, as well as an updated and adequate legal framework to make it easier for indigenous communities to have actual access to the lands. 104. The Court considers that the administrative proceedings under analysis have at least three major flaws. The first one is that domestic laws refer to the Agrarian Law, wherein the yardstick is whether or not the claimed lands are rationally exploited, regardless of considerations specific to the indigenous peoples, such as what lands mean for them. It is enough to ascertain that the lands are being rationally exploited for the IBR not to be able to return them to the indigenous communities. It was so acknowledged by the Legal Counseling Department of the IBR (supra para. 73(74)) when it pointed out that although from the file of the case pending before such institution it resulted “that the piece of land requested, Retiro SANTA ELISA, is part […] of th[e] traditional habitat” of the members of the Sawhoyamaxa Community, from the steps taken by the IBR and the attached documents “the rationality of the exploitation” of such pieces of land was evidenced, whereby, “pursuant to the provisions of the AGRARIAN STATUTE, it w[as] not possible to compulsively take them and the owners refused any other negotiated outcome.” The report concluded that the IBR had no “powers to sacrifice an ECONOMIC UNIT, particularly if there is an alternative solution.” Afterwards, the IBR, in a resolution adopted on June 15, 1999 (supra para. 73(74), stated that: it is not for the IBR to decide whether to condemn or to negotiate the purchase of a piece of real property claimed by an Indigenous Community, or not; such power lies exclusively with the [INDI. T]herefore, such institution is the one which will consider whether granting such petition is feasible or not [,] 105. The same difficulties appear in the legislative proceedings before the National Congress. According to the State, these proceedings “have not been effective […] 180 Cf. Case of the Indigenous Community Yakye Axa, supra note 1, para. 97.