May 16, 2013, INA repeated the initial request. 130 On June 7, 2013, the Finance Ministry concluded that given the Public Administration’s difficult economic situation no funds were available to respond to this request that entailed additional resources to those already included in the national budget. 131 Following two requests for reconsideration dated June 17 and September 9, 2013, 132 the Finance Ministry ratified the refusal to create a new budget item on September 12 and October 10, 2013. 133 Therefore, the budget item was not created and the territory of the Punta Piedra Garifuna community was not freed of encumbrances, as the State has acknowledged before this Court (supra para. 37). 124. In their observations on the on-site procedure, the representatives emphasized that the leaders of the Rio Miel Development Association had initially told the Court’s delegation that they would be willing to receive payment for the improvements and relocate if the State gave them good quality land because an agreement existed and this was verified by the Court’s delegation. However, later during the same procedure, members of that village indicated that they did not want to go, because they had made significant investments in its development and growth. E. “Punta Piedra II” non-metallic mining concession 125. On December 4, 2014, by resolution No. 105/12/2014 of the Honduran Institute of Geology and Mines, the mining corporation, CAXINA S.A., was granted a concession for non-metallic mining exploration, under which it intended to execute the project known as “Punta Piedra II.” The concession was granted for ten years, renewable at the contractor’s request, over an area of 800 hectares. 134 126. With regard to its location, according to the State, the territory of the Punta Piedra community does not form part of the area granted in concession because there are 1.25 kilometers between the nearest points of the two territories. However, during the on-site procedure conducted in the instant case, the State (Jesus Flores, INA engineer) gave the Court’s delegation a map on which it was verified that the area granted in concession covered part of the eastern border of the Punta Piedra community’s territory, according to both the 1993 definitive title and its 1999 expansion 135 (see Annex 3). 127. It was also noted that the “Punta Piedra II” project was at the stage of exploration and determination of the financial feasibility of the deposit to be exploited. Cf. Official letter No. DE-42-2013 addressed by the INA Minister-Director to the Ministry of Finance of May 16, 2013 (evidence file, folios 1342 and 1343). 131 Cf. Official letter No. 070-DGP-ID addressed by the INA Minister-Director to the Ministry of Finance on June 7, 2013 (evidence file, folio 1339). 132 Cf. Official letters No. DE-058-2013 of June 17, 2013, and No. DE-088-2013 of September 9, 2013, addressed by the INA Minister-Director to the Ministry of Finance (evidence file, folios 1337 and 1338, respectively). 133 Cf. Official letters No. 097-DGP-ID of September 12, 2013, and No. 158-DGP-ID of October 10, 2013, addressed by the Ministry of Finance to the INA Minister-Director (evidence file, folios 1340 and 1341, respectively). 134 Cf. “Consolidated Annual Financial Statement, DAC-2014,” prepared by CAXINA S.A., mining corporation, on January 27, 2015 (merits file, folio 756 and 757). 135 Cf. Map of the territory titled to the Punta Piedra Garifuna community handed over during the onsite procedure of August 25, 2015 (merits file, folio 1126). 130 38