5 status of the procedure followed under Act No. 445 for the delimitation, demarcation and titling of the territory of the members of the Awas Tingni Community (supra Having seen paragraph 2). 12. That, during the private hearing held on May 3, 2008, at the seat of the Court, the State once again indicated, in relation to the third operative paragraph, that Act No. 445 had been promulgated, establishing the mechanisms and procedures for the demarcation and titling of indigenous lands. It indicated that these mechanisms were established by the legislators in conjunction with indigenous leaders and that, as established in this act, any existing disputes between the applicant community and the neighboring communities needed to be settled. It specified that, in the case of the Awas Tingni Community, there were two different disputes, one of them with the Tasba Raya communities, which had been settled by the competent authority on February 14, 2007, and the other arising from a supposed overlapping alleged by the Miskita group known as the “Ten Communities,” which was pending settlement. 13. That, in the observations they presented on April 25, 2003, the representatives stated that they “acknowledge that Act No. 445 reflects a historic achievement for the indigenous peoples of the Atlantic Coast and represents a first step in the State’s compliance with [the third operative] paragraph of the Judgment.” However, they also said that “it is impossible to determine […] whether this act will constitute an effective mechanism for titling the Community’s lands.” In subsequent observations, including those submitted on November 17, 2004, January 18 and September 6, 2005, and June 19, 2006, the representatives indicated that, despite the deadlines established in Act No. 445 and the State’s undertaking to give priority to the delimitation, demarcation and titling of the lands of the members of the Community, the latter’s application has suffered various delays and the process was at a standstill. They considered that the act did not represent an effective mechanism. On November 17, 2004, they asked the Court to declare that the State had failed to comply with the third operative paragraph. However, at the private hearing on May 3, 2008, the representatives made no specific reference to the status of compliance with this operative paragraph. 14. That, in its observations, the Inter-American Commission stated that it “recognized the progress made […owing to the] adoption of the new Act [No.] 445 and the appointment of a representative of the President to coordinate and monitor compliance with the Judgment.” However, it pointed to the lack of progress in the process of delimitation, demarcation and titling of the lands of the members of the Awas Tingni Community. Nevertheless, the Commission acknowledged that the State had complied with the third operative paragraph of the Judgment, and reaffirmed this during the private hearing held on May 3, 2008. 15. That, from the information forwarded by the parties and provided by them during the said private hearing, the Court observes that the State, as ordered in the third operative paragraph of the Judgment, promulgated Act No. 445, whose purpose is to regulate the communal property regime of the indigenous and ethnic lands of the Atlantic Coast and the Coco, Bocay, Indio and Maiz Rivers, and to establish the necessary legal procedures for the delimitation, demarcation and titling of the communal lands. Consequently, the Court considers that the third operative paragraph of the Judgment has been complied with. * * *