68 109. In relation to the alleged violations of Articles 1(1) and 2 of the Convention, the Court recalls that the State is obliged to provide for appropriate procedures in its national legal system to process the land claim proceedings of the indigenous peoples with an interest thereon. For such purpose, the generic obligation to respect rights established in Article 1(1) of said treaty imposes on the States the duty to ensure an accessible and simple procedure and to provide competent authorities with the technical and material conditions necessary to respond timely to the requests filed in the framework of said procedure. 110. Article 2 of the Convention imposes on the States Parties the generic obligation to adapt their domestic laws to the rules of the Convention itself to give effect to those rights provided for therein. Domestic legal provisions passed for such purpose must be effective (effet utile principle), that is to say that the State must adopt all the measures necessary to actually comply with the provisions of the Convention.183 111. In the instant case, Paraguay has failed to adopt the appropriate domestic law measures necessary to ensure an effective procedure providing a final solution to the claim laid by the members of the Sawhoyamaxa Community, in the terms of the preceding paragraphs. 112. On the basis of all the foregoing, the Court considers that the land claim legal proceedings instituted by the members of the Sawhoyamaxa Community did not observe the reasonable time principle and proved to be completely ineffective, all of which is in violation of Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention, in the light of Articles 1(1) and 2 thereof. IX. VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 21 OF THE AMERICAN CONVENTION (RIGHT TO PROPERTY) IN RELATION TO ARTICLES 1(1) AND 2 THEREOF Argument by the Commission: 113. In relation to Article 21 of the American Convention, in conjunction with Articles 1(1) and 2 thereof, the Commission alleged that: a) Paraguay has not guaranteed the right to property over their ancestral lands of the members of the Sawhoyamaxa Community, consequently depriving said Indigenous Community not only of the material possession of their lands but also from the fundamental basis to develop their culture, their spiritual live, their integrity and their economic survival; b) Paraguayan laws in force make up a favorable legal framework for indigenous peoples; however, they cannot by themselves guarantee the rights of such peoples. In the instant case, even though there are constitutional and legal rules that recognize the rights of the members of the Sawhoyamaxa Community to their ancestral territory and even though the State has expressly recognized said rights, restitution proceedings brought by the Community in 1993 are still pending, and 183 Cf. Case of Gómez-Palomino, supra note 12, para. 91; Case of Yatama, supra note 8, para. 170; Case of Lori Berenson. Judgment of November 25, 2004. para. 220.