69 c) the lands claimed by the Community are part of its traditional habitat or ancestral territory and its current situation violates its right to live in said lands. The Commission does not overlook that, as asserted by the State, the territory of the Enxet-Lengua people is part of an ancestral territory which is much larger than the territory that the Community claims to be their traditional habitat, which represents a very small part of the whole ancestral territory of the Enxet-Lengua people; however, the claimed area is not the result of a whim of the Indigenous Community, as it stems from the statements presented as evidence to the Court. Argument by the Representatives 114. In relation to Article 21 of the American Convention, in conjunction with Articles 1(1) and 2 thereof, the Representatives alleged that: a) as pointed out by the State, the right of the Sawhoyamaxa Community to the communal property of their ancestral land would be colliding with the right to private property vested in the current owners of such land. In this regard, the State should have argued that, in the instant case, the principle of rational exploitation of the lands that the Community claimed, to which the current private owners resorted, implied an imperative public interest that differs from serving a useful or timely purpose. The State has not presented any argument along such line of thought. On the contrary, in the instant case, failure to observe the ancestral right of the Community and its members with respect to their lands would radically affect other basic rights, such as, and in a fundamental way, the right to cultural identity and to the very survival of the Indigenous Community and of its members; b) the restriction currently allowed by the State on the right of the Sawhoyamaxa Community to the communal property of its traditional habitat exceeds the proportionality principle. Firstly, the legitimate purpose of the decision to refuse restitution of traditional lands to the Community is not at all clear. Secondly, the current restriction does not just interfere with the exercise by the Community of its right to its ancestral land, but it absolutely prevents it and affects other basic rights intimately tied to the right to the land. Thirdly, inasmuch as the restriction imposed on the exercise of the right of the Community totally vacates such exercise, it is in itself disproportionate, regardless of the legitimate interest the State may allege, and c) the acknowledgment of the injustice sustained by the Sawhoyamaxa Community as a result of the dispossession, might also lead the Court to consider that Paraguay, by failing to restore ancestral land to the Community commits a violation of the principles of necessity, proportionality and attainment of legitimate aims in a democratic society. Argument by the State 115. In relation to Article 21 of the American Convention, in conjunction with Articles 1(1) and 2 thereof, the State asserted that: a) the State has guaranteed the Community members access to all available legal means to exercise the right to property, and if it has not been