Better Right of Possession in Indigenous Territory and Community Self-GovernmentMejor derecho de posesión en territorio indígena y autogobierno comunitario

**IV.** * In accordance with the claims set forth in the complaint on pages 6 to 7, this is an action for a better right of possession (mejor derecho de posesión). It should be noted that the parcel in conflict is located within the boundaries of the Coto Brus Indigenous Territory, which is home to the Ngöbe indigenous community, an aspect that is not in dispute in this matter. The limits of said collective were modified by Executive Decree number 12232 of January 26, 1981. Before resolving the appeal, it is pertinent to mention some significant aspects of property belonging to indigenous peoples. The Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice (Sala Constitucional de la Corte Suprema de Justicia) opportunely indicated:* “*Regarding the property of indigenous communities. It is important to note the collective or community character of indigenous property, since its belonging is not personal, but rather that of the collective as such. Among indigenous peoples there exists a community tradition of a communal form of collective land ownership, in the sense that belonging to it is not centered on an individual but on the group and its community. By the very fact of their existence, indigenous peoples have the right to live freely in their own territories; the close relationship that indigenous peoples maintain with the land must be recognized and understood as the fundamental basis of their cultures, their spiritual life, their integrity, and their economic survival. The Development Associations, as a “community structure,” are the competent entities to dispose of the possession of the land in order to guarantee access to it for all indigenous inhabitants, and regarding indigenous property, because of its collective nature, the rules on individual rights for the protection of individual property and possession provided in the legal system for that purpose are inapplicable. […] For indigenous communities, the relationship with the land is not merely a question of possession and production but a material and spiritual element which they must fully enjoy, including to preserve their cultural legacy and transmit it to future generations. The customary law of indigenous peoples must be especially taken into account, for the purposes that, as a product of custom, possession of the land should be sufficient for indigenous communities that lack an official title over land ownership to obtain official recognition of said property and its subsequent registration. An indigenous reserve is an original agrarian property of a collective nature, and no individual property or possession right can be claimed over it to the detriment of the community of belonging, its owner being the entirety of the community, and it cannot be broken up into private property precisely because of its legal nature destined for the collectivity …*” (judgment number 281-2011 of 9 hours 36 minutes of January 14, 2011, of the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice). Consequently, it is necessary to analyze whether the plaintiff has a better right of possession of the parcel in conflict in light of the errors attributed to the judgment. * **V.** The first issue to be elucidated lies in the powers of the Development Association (Asociación de Desarrollo) that owns the land in conflict and its relationship with the administration of the territory that belongs to them. According to ILO Convention 169 concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries of 1989, Article 8 provides that in applying national laws to the peoples concerned, their customs or customary law (derecho consuetudinario) shall be duly taken into consideration. The second paragraph of the rule in question stipulates that these peoples shall have the right to retain their own customs and institutions, insofar as these are not incompatible with fundamental rights defined by the national legal system or with internationally recognized human rights. Likewise, it provides that, where necessary, States shall establish procedures to resolve conflicts that may arise in the application of the principle in question. In accordance with the foregoing premise, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples of September 13, 2007, contains a solemn proclamation on the rights of indigenous peoples, whose common ideal pursues a spirit of solidarity and mutual respect. On the subject under analysis, Article 4 states: “*Indigenous peoples, in exercising their right to self-determination, have the right to autonomy or self-government in matters relating to their internal and local affairs, as well as ways and means for financing their autonomous functions*.” In addition, Article 5 establishes: “*Indigenous peoples have the right to maintain and strengthen their distinct political, legal, economic, social and cultural institutions, while retaining their right to participate fully, if they so choose, in the political, economic, social and cultural life of the State*.” Furthermore, concerning the right to and relationship with territories, the aforementioned international document states in Article 26 the following: “*26.1. Indigenous peoples have the right to the lands, territories and resources which they have traditionally owned, occupied or otherwise used or acquired. 2. Indigenous peoples have the right to own, use, develop and control the lands, territories and resources that they possess by reason of traditional ownership or other traditional occupation or use, as well as those which they have otherwise acquired. 3. States shall give legal recognition and protection to these lands, territories and resources. Such recognition shall be conducted with due respect to the customs, traditions and land tenure systems of the indigenous peoples concerned*.” In consonance with this supra-constitutional normative framework, Indigenous Law No. 6172 of November 29, 1977, enshrines the right to self-government and respect for the structures of each territory. The traditional community structure, according to Article 2, is the aboriginal coexistence and cohesion under the influence of the chieftainship (cacicazgo) and/or any other type of hierarchy specific to indigenous groups. Therefore, Article 3 of the cited legal body establishes that, for the exercise of rights and fulfillment of obligations, and in order to grant them legal personality for the defense of their rights, they shall be grouped into comprehensive development associations (asociaciones de desarrollo integral), under the terms of Law No. 3859 on the National Directorate of Community Development Associations (Dirección Nacional de Asociaciones de Desarrollo de la Comunidad) and its Regulations. For that reason, it granted the presidents of the respective Indigenous Development Associations, legally registered, the powers of general agents thereof, in accordance with the provision of Article 4 ibid. The aforementioned traditional community structures shall operate within the respective communities; and the development associations, once legally registered, shall represent these communities judicially and extrajudicially (Article 5 ibid). Based on the foregoing, it can be summarized that there is protection of the rights of indigenous peoples to maintain their administrative structure and organization, to guarantee the relationship with the territory of their property, an aspect duly respected in our legal system. In this matter, it is relevant to consider what is stated in the cultural expert report (peritaje cultural), which shows that there exists, on one hand, the comprehensive development association and, in the internal hierarchy, a cacique (chief), called [[Name1]] (document on pages 91 to 97). * This documentary evidence is considered by this Chamber as proof that has been subjected to adversarial proceedings, given that a hearing was granted to the parties by resolution of 07 hours 57 minutes of August 11, 2014, on page 98, without any of the parties expressing any type of opinion or opposition. In addition to the explanation of the methodology used, the persons participating in the research denote elements that reflect the reality of the events recounted therein and the data collected, as well as the conclusions expressed. For greater clarity, regarding the technical nature of such expert report, it is fitting to highlight what was indicated by the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice: “…When referring to the rights of indigenous persons, it must be emphasized that their customs and traditions are preponderant, as recognized, for example, by Article 11 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples which indicates that: ‘Indigenous peoples have the right to practice and revitalize their cultural traditions and customs (…)’, and it is a key cultural point for indigenous peoples that it is the older persons, that is, persons of more advanced age, who have played a primary role in determining who is indigenous or not. Thus, the Association cannot arbitrarily determine that an applicant is not indigenous, since this, according to their customs, is determined by the elders of the community, which is not observed to have occurred in the specific case, in which there is no expert opinion (dictamen) rendered by an older person of the community to establish under reasonable criteria that the person does not meet the necessary characteristics to be considered indigenous. […] To legitimately deny affiliation to an Association on this point, a cultural expert report must be conducted so that persons with the necessary technical training may pronounce on whether or not a territory belongs to a specific ethnic community. …” (the highlighting is not part of the text of the judgment of 10 hours 50 minutes of June 11, 2010, vote number 2010-010224). From the foregoing extract, the High Constitutional Court determines the relevance of this evidence due to its technical nature in reflecting the reality and customs of an indigenous people. For this reason, the appellant’s allegation is not shared, to the effect that it refers to general facts and not specifics of the case, because, despite containing an introduction or general aspects, all the information is amalgamated with the factual situation for which the expert report was requested. One of the grievances revolves, as indicated, around the value of the document on page 1. This evidence is a certificate of right of possession, issued on June 14, 2009. Furthermore, this document explains that the right of possession of the appellant derives from an inheritance from his father “*[[Name2]]*” (). It is also relevant to mention that the Comprehensive Development Association of the Coto Brus Territory (Asociación de Desarrollo Integral del Territorio de Coto Brus) admits, through an ordinary proceeding, a debate on the better right of possession, in order to guarantee the effective right of persons belonging to that group. In this case, the parties had to resort to the ordinary jurisdiction, because the defendant specifically did not agree with what was expressed by the cited Association, which is contained in the cited expert document. It is fitting to mention that information was included on the valid criteria, according to the custom of that people, regarding the possession or individual assignment of lands. The source of information used was the community association’s own rules, as well as that of the current cacique. Specifically on custom, it is stated: “…The possessory rights of the members of the indigenous community were respected, and, from then on, in principle, the ADITICB has only assigned or distributed unoccupied lands, lands that have been considered abandoned, or lands that have been recovered from non-indigenous possessors, in addition to having mediated in the recognition of inheritance rights of those who have inherited lands or portions of lands from deceased relatives” (page 96). Information was also collected on the loss of that right according to custom as follows: “….According to explanations from the president of ADITICB that were recognized by other members of the community as valid and in accordance with custom, a possessing person can lose their right to a specific rural property (predio) if they do not work it or if there is no manifestation of its use for a period of six months.” Furthermore, they explain in those cases where there is a dispute, the way, according to custom, to resolve them: “When disagreements or disputes arise between members of the community over rural properties, boundaries, or inheritance territorial matters, in principle, one resorts to the Board of Directors (Junta Directiva) of ADITICB to proceed to make the respective inquiries, mediate, and determine the better right. All acts of assignment, recovery, or appropriation of lands considered abandoned, as well as agreements between parties disputing a rural property or dividing a territorial inheritance, according to the president of ADITICB, are preliminarily formalized by the Board of Directors but subsequently ratified in the Assembly (Asamblea). However, there are cases in which one of the parties or both do not accept the ruling of ADITICB, and they are therefore then referred to the judicial courts, as in the present case.” From the reading of the document that the appellant alleges has been improperly weighed, it is evident that the entire process detailed in the expert report, based on the customs of that territory, does not show that it was ratified by the Assembly, only by the Board of Directors, according to what is broken down in the legend on the back of the document on page 1. This Chamber considers it necessary to underline that the cited procedure is specific to this people according to the expert report, supported by the customs and self-government of the collective. Reiterating, it is considered that the value granted to such evidence in the judgment does not violate ILO Convention 169 or international instruments for the resolution of cases of indigenous persons, since the parties, in case of disagreement, may resort to the ordinary courts and are not obliged to submit to what is indicated by the board of directors of the territory's integral association. Nor is the custom of mortis causa transmission alleged disrespected, because it is a right of the parties to resort to this avenue to debate their territorial conflicts. * This evidence is a certification of possessory right, issued on June 14, 2009. Furthermore, that document explains that the appellant's possessory right derives from an inheritance from his father *“[[Nombre2]]” (). It is also relevant to mention that the Asociación de Desarrollo Integral del Territorio de Coto Brus admits, through an ordinary proceeding, a debate on the superior possessory right, in order to guarantee the effective right of the persons belonging to that group. In the present case, the parties had to resort to the ordinary jurisdiction, because the defendant specifically disagreed with what was stated by the aforementioned Association, which is contained in the cited expert document. It is worth mentioning that information was included on the current criteria, according to the custom of that people, regarding the individual possession or allocation of lands. The source of information used was the community association's own rules, as well as those of the current cacique.

Specifically regarding the custom, it is noted: “…<span style="font-family:'Bookman Old Style'; font-style:italic">The possessory rights of the members of the indigenous community were respected and, from then on, in principle, the ADITICB has only assigned or distributed unoccupied lands, lands that have been considered abandoned, or lands that have been recovered from non-indigenous possessors, in addition to having mediated in the recognition of inheritance rights of those who have inherited lands or portions of lands from deceased relatives</span><span style="font-family:'Bookman Old Style';">” (folio 96).</span><span style="font-family:'Bookman Old Style';"> </span><span style="font-family:'Bookman Old Style';"> Information was also gathered on the loss of that right according to custom, as follows: “….</span><span style="font-family:'Bookman Old Style'; font-style:italic">According to explanations from the president of ADITICB, which were recognized by other members of the community as valid and in accordance with custom, a possessing person may lose their right to a specific plot if they do not (sic) work it or there is no manifestation of its use for a period of six months</span><span style="font-family:'Bookman Old Style';">”. Furthermore, they explain in those cases where there is a dispute, the form, according to custom, of resolving them: “</span><span style="font-family:'Bookman Old Style'; font-style:italic">When disagreements or disputes arise between members of the community over plots, boundaries, or territorial inheritance matters, in principle, they turn to the Board of Directors (Junta Directiva) of the ADITICB to carry out the respective inquiries, mediate, and determine the better right. All acts of assignment, recovery, or appropriation of lands considered abandoned, as well as agreements between parties who dispute a plot or divide a territorial inheritance, according to the president of ADITICB, are preliminarily formalized by the Board of Directors but later ratified in the Assembly. However, cases arise in which one or both parties do not accept the ruling of the ADITICB, and they are therefore then referred to the judicial courts, as in the present case.</span><span style="font-family:'Bookman Old Style';">” From the reading of the document that the appellant claims has been improperly assessed, it is inferred that the entire detailed process in the expert report based on the customs of that territory does not appear to have been ratified by the Assembly, only by the Board of Directors, as broken down from the legend on the back of the document on folio 1. This Chamber considers it must emphasize that the cited procedure is specific to this people according to the expert report, grounded in the customs and self-government of the collective. Reiterating, it is considered that the value granted to such evidence in the judgment does not violate Convention 169 of the ILO or international instruments for the resolution of cases involving indigenous persons, because in the event of disagreement, the parties may resort to the ordinary courts and are not obliged to submit to what is indicated by the board of directors of the integral association of the territory. Nor is the alleged custom of transmission mortis causa disrespected, because it is a right of the parties to turn to this venue to debate their territorial conflicts.” </span><span>*</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt"><span>*</span><span> </span></p></div></body></html>" } }

“IV.* De acuerdo a las pretensiones elencadas en el libelo de demanda de fojas 6 a 7, se trata de una acción de mejor derecho de posesión. Nótese la parcela en conflicto se ubica dentro de los linderos del Territorio Indígena de Coto Brus, que alberga a la comunidad indígena ngöbe, aspecto no controvertido en este asunto. Los límites de tal colectivo, fue reformada mediante decreto ejecutivo número 12232 del 26 de enero de 1981. Previo a resolver lo apelado, es pertinente mencionar algunos aspectos significativos de la propiedad que pertenece a pueblos indígenas. La Sala Constitucional de la Corte Suprema de Justicia oportunamente indicó:* “Sobre la propiedad de las comunidades indígenas. Importante es indicar sobre el carácter colectivo o comunitario de la propiedad indígena, ya que la pertenencia de ésta no es personal, sino del colectivo como tal. Entre los indígenas existe una tradición comunitaria sobre una forma comunal de la propiedad colectiva de la tierra, en el sentido de que la pertenencia a ésta no se centra en un individuo sino en el grupo y su comunidad. Los indígenas por el hecho de su propia existencia tienen derecho a vivir libremente en sus propios territorios; la estrecha relación que los indígenas mantienen con la tierra debe de ser reconocida y comprendida como la base fundamental de sus culturas, su vida espiritual, su integridad y su supervivencia económica. Las asociaciones de Desarrollo, como “estructura comunitaria”, son las competentes para disponer de la posesión de la tierra a fin de garantizar el acceso a ella a todos los pobladores indígenas, y en lo que atañe a la propiedad indígena por ser de carácter colectiva, resultan inaplicables las normas sobre derechos individuales para la tutela de la propiedad y la posesión individuales dispuestas en el ordenamiento jurídico al efecto. […] Para las comunidades indígenas la relación con la tierra no es meramente una cuestión de posesión y producción sino un elemento material y espiritual del que deben gozar plenamente, inclusive para preservar su legado cultural y transmitirlo a las generaciones futuras. El derecho consuetudinario de los pueblos indígenas debe ser tenido especialmente en cuenta, para los efectos de que se trata como producto de la costumbre, la posesión de la tierra debería bastar para que las comunidades indígenas que carezcan de un título real sobre la propiedad de la tierra obtengan el reconocimiento oficial de dicha propiedad y el consiguiente registro. Una reserva indígena, es una propiedad agraria originaria y de carácter colectivo, no pudiendo reclamarse sobre ella ningún derecho de propiedad o de posesión individual en perjuicio de la comunidad de pertenencia, siendo su propietario la totalidad de la comunidad, no pudiendo ser desmembrada en propiedad privada precisamente por su naturaleza jurídica destinada a la colectividad …” (sentencia número 281-2011 de las 9 horas 36 minutos del 14 de enero de 2011 de la Sala Constitucional de la Corte Suprema de Justicia). Corresponde en consecuencia analizar si al actor le asiste un mejor derecho de posesión de la parcela en conflicto a la luz de los yerros endilgados a la sentencia. *

V.El primer tema a dilucidar radica en las potestades de la Asociación de Desarrollo propietaria del fundo en conflicto y su relación con la administración del territorio que les pertenece. De acuerdo al Convenio 169 de la Organización Internacional del Trabajo, concerniente a los pueblos indígenas y tribales en países independientes del año 1989, en el canon 8, dispone, al aplicar la legislación nacional a los pueblos interesados deberán tomarse debidamente en consideración sus costumbres o su derecho consuetudinario. En el inciso segundo de la norma en mención, se estipula, dichos pueblos deberán tener el derecho de conservar sus costumbres e instituciones propias, siempre que éstas no sean incompatibles con los derechos fundamentales definidos por el sistema jurídico nacional ni con los derechos humanos internacionalmente reconocidos. Asimismo, prevé en caso de necesidad, los Estados deberán establecer procedimientos para solucionar los conflictos que puedan surgir en la aplicación del principio en mención. En consonancia con la primicia anterior, la Declaración de las Naciones Unidas sobre los derechos de los pueblos indígenas del 13 de setiembre de 2007, contiene una proclama solemne sobre los derechos de los pueblos indígenas, cuyo ideal común persigue un espíritu de solidaridad y respeto mutuo. Sobre el tema en análisis el estatuto 4 señala: “Los pueblos indígenas, en ejercicio de su derecho a la libre determinación, tienen derecho a la autonomía o al autogobierno en las cuestiones relacionadas con sus asuntos internos y locales, así como a disponer de medios para financiar sus funciones autónomas”. Además, en el ordinal 5 establece: “Los pueblos indígenas tienen derecho a conservar y reforzar sus propias instituciones políticas, jurídicas, económicas, sociales y culturales, manteniendo a la vez su derecho a participar plenamente, si lo desean, en la vida política, económica, social y cultural del Estado”. Por otra parte, en lo concerniente al derecho y relación con los territorios el citado documento internacional señala en el numeral 26 lo siguiente: “26.1. Los pueblos indígenas tienen derecho a las tierras, territorios y recursos que tradicionalmente han poseído, ocupado o utilizado o adquirido. 2. Los pueblos indígenas tienen derecho a poseer, utilizar, desarrollar y controlar las tierras, territorios y recursos que poseen en razón de la propiedad tradicional u otro tipo tradicional de ocupación o utilización, así como aquellos que hayan adquirido de otra forma. 3. Los Estados asegurarán el reconocimiento y protección jurídicos de esas tierras, territorios y recursos. Dicho reconocimiento respetará debidamente las costumbres, las tradiciones y los sistemas de tenencia de la tierra de los pueblos indígenas de que se trate”. Consonante con esta normativa supraconstitucional, la Ley Indígena No. 6172 del 29 de noviembre de 1977, consagra el derecho del autogobierno y respeto por las estructuras de cada territorio. La estructura comunitaria tradicional de acuerdo al artículo 2, es la convivencia y cohesión aborigen bajo la influencia del cacicazgo y o cualquier otro tipo de jerarquía propio de los grupos indígenas. Por lo anterior, el ordinal 3 del cuerpo legal en cita establece, para el ejercicio de los derechos y cumplimiento de las obligaciones y en aras de dotarlos de personalidad jurídica para la defensa de sus derechos se estableció que se aglutinarían en asociaciones de desarrollo integral, en los términos de la ley N° 3859 de la Dirección Nacional de Asociaciones de Desarrollo de la Comunidad y su Reglamento. Por esa razón, le concedió a los presidentes de las respectivas Asociaciones de Desarrollo Indígenas, legalmente inscritas, las facultades de apoderados generales de las mismas, de acuerdo a la disposición del artículo 4 ibíd. Las estructuras comunitarias tradicionales mencionadas, operarán en el interior de las respectivas comunidades; y las asociaciones de desarrollo, una vez inscritas legalmente, representarán judicial y extrajudicialmente a dichas comunidades (numeral 5 ibíd). En razón de lo anterior, se puede sintetizar, existe una tutela de los derechos de los pueblos indígenas de mantener su estructura administrativa y organización, para garantizar la relación con el territorio de su propiedad, aspecto debidamente respetado en nuestro ordenamiento jurídico. En este asunto, es relevante considerar lo expuesto en el peritaje cultural, donde se desprende existe por un lado la asociación de desarrollo integral y en la jerarquía interna un cacique, llamado [[Nombre1]] (documento de foja 91 a 97). * Esta documental es considerada por esta Cámara como una probanza que se ha sometido al contradictorio, siendo se concedió audiencia a las partes, mediante resolución de las 07 horas 57 minutos del 11 de agosto de 2014 en página 98, sin que ninguna de las partes externara ningún tipo de criterio u oposición. Además de la explicación de la metodología empleada, las personas participantes en la investigación, denota elementos que reflejan la realidad de los sucesos ahí relatados y de los datos recopilados, así como de las conclusiones externadas. A mayor abundamiento, sobre el carácter técnico de tal peritaje conviene resaltar lo indicado por la Sala Constitucional de la Corte Suprema de Justicia: “…Cuando se hace referencia a los derechos de las personas indígenas, debe destacarse que las costumbres y tradiciones de éstos son preponderantes, así lo reconoce por ejemplo el artículo 11 de la Declaración de las Naciones Unidas sobre los derechos de los pueblos indígenas que indica que: “Los pueblos indígenas tienen derecho a practicar y revitalizar sus tradiciones y costumbres culturales (…)”,y es un punto clave cultural de los indígenas que son las personas mayores, es decir de más edad, los que han tenido un papel primordial en la determinación de quien es indígena o no. Así las cosas, no puede de manera arbitraria la Asociación determinar que un solicitante no es indígena, ya que ello según sus costumbres lo determinan los ancianos de la comunidad, lo cual no se observa haya sucedido en el caso concreto, en el que no consta un dictamen rendido por una persona mayor de la comunidad para establecer bajo criterios razonables que la persona no reúne las características necesarias para ser considerado indígena. […] Para poder denegar de manera legítima la afiliación a una Asociación por este punto, debe realizarse un peritaje cultural con el fin de que sean personas con la formación técnica necesaria los que se pronuncien sobre si un territorio pertenece o no a una determinada comunidad étnica. …” (lo destacado no es del texto de la sentencia de las 10 horas 50 minutos del 11 de junio de 2010, voto número 2010-010224). Del extracto anterior se determina por el Alto Tribunal Constitucional, la relevancia de esta probanza por su carácter técnico para reflejar la realidad y costumbres de un pueblo indígena. Por esa razón no se comparte el alegato de la apelante, en cuanto a que se refiere a hechos generales y no específicos del caso, porque, a pesar de contener una introducción o aspectos generales, toda la información queda amalgamada con la situación fáctica para la cual fue solicitado el peritaje. Uno de los agravios gira en torno, como se indicó, sobre el valor del documento de foja 1. Esta probanza es una constancia de posesión de derecho, extendido el 14 de junio de 2009. Además, explica ese documento, el derecho de posesión del apelante deriva de una herencia de su padre *“[[Nombre2]]” () . También es relevante mencionar, la Asociación de Desarrollo Integral del Territorio de Coto Brus, admite mediante un proceso ordinario un debate sobre el mejor derecho de posesión, en aras de garantizar el efectivo derecho de las personas que pertenecen a ese grupo. En la especie, las partes debieron acudir a la jurisdicción ordinaria, porque específicamente el demandado no estuvo de acuerdo con lo expresado por la citada Asociación, lo cual está contenido en el documento pericial de cita. Conviene mencionar, se incluyó información sobre los criterios vigentes, de acuerdo a la costumbre de ese pueblo, respecto a la posesión o asignación individual de tierras. La fuente de información utilizada fue con las normas propias de la asociación de la comunidad, así como del actual cacique. Específicamente sobre la costumbre se señala: “…Los derechos posesorios de los miembros de la comunidad indígena fueron respetados y, de ahí en adelante, en principio, la ADITICB solamente ha asignado o repartido tierras no ocupadas, tierras que se han considerado abandonadas o tierras que se han recuperado de poseedores no indígenas, además de haber mediado en el reconocimiento de derechos sucesorios de quienes han heredado tierras o porciones de tierras de parientes fallecidos” (folio 96). También se recopiló información sobre la pérdida de ese derecho de acuerdo a la costumbre así: “….Según explicaciones del presidente de ADITICB que fueron reconocidas por otros miembros de la comunidad como válidas y acordes a la costumbre, una persona poseedora puede perder su derecho a un predio determinando si no (sic) lo trabaja o hay manifestación de uso del mismo por un período de seis meses”. Además explican en aquellos casos donde hay disputa, la forma, de acuerdo a la costumbre, de resolverlos: “Cuando se presentan desacuerdos o disputas entre miembros de la comunidad por predios, por linderos o por asuntos territoriales sucesorios, en principio se acude a la Junta Directiva de la ADITICB para que proceda a hacer las indagaciones respectivas, medie y disponga el mejor derecho. Todos los actos de asignación, de recuperación o de apropiación de tierras consideradas abandonadas, así como los acuerdos entre partes que se disputan un predio o se reparten una herencia territorial, de acuerdo al presidente de ADITICB, son formalizados en (sic) preliminarmente por la Junta Directiva pero luego ratificados en Asamblea. Sin embargo, se presentan casos en que una de las partes o ambas no aceptan el fallo de la ADITICB, por lo que son entonces remitidos a los estrados judiciales, como en el presente caso”. De la lectura del documento que alega el recurrente ha sido indebidamente valorado, se desprende, todo el proceso detallado en el peritaje sustentado en las costumbres de ese territorio, no consta fuera ratificado por la Asamblea, únicamente por la Junta Directiva, según se desglosa de la leyenda en el dorso del documento de foja 1. Estima esta Cámara, debe subrayar, el procedimiento de cita es específico para este pueblo de acuerdo al informe experto, sustentado en las costumbres y autogobierno del colectivo. Reiterando, se estima que el valor concedido a tal probanza en la sentencia, no violenta el convenio 169 de la OIT o instrumentos internacionales para la resolución de casos de personas indígenas, pues las partes en caso de desacuerdo pueden acudir a la vía ordinaria y no están obligadas a someterse a lo indicado por la junta directiva de la asociación integral del territorio. Tampoco se irrespeta la costumbre de la transmisión mortis causa aducida, porque es un derecho de las partes acudir a esta vía a debatir sus conflictos territoriales.” *

*