mayor advised that the mayor’s office had not issued any type of permit and it had no supporting documentation in this regard. 197 157. Regarding the actions ordered, the DNIC agents inspected the area of Rio Miel, and, as a result: (a) confirmed the existence of a cutting for a highway in front of a place called “Pulperia y Hospedaje La Única.” This highway went to “El Rio Tinto Negro” passing through the “Cerro Castillo” sector, near Paulino Mejía’s properties. Nevertheless, the agents were unable to reach the end of it owing to the presumed presence in the area of armed individuals; (b) they took photographs of the cutting made for the highway, and (c) they recorded that the mayor's office had not authorized any construction. This was reported to the Ethnic Affairs Prosecutor on August 1, 2013. 198 The Court has no further information on this process. IX MERITS 158. Based on the rights of the Convention alleged in the instant case, the Court will make the following analysis: (1) Right to collective property in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 of the American Convention; (2) Right to judicial protection in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 of the American Convention, and (3) Right to life, judicial guarantees and judicial protection. IX-1 RIGHT TO COLLECTIVE PROPERTY IN RELATION TO ARTICLES 1(1) AND 2 OF THE AMERICAN CONVENTION A. Arguments of the Commission and the parties 159. The Commission indicated that the State had violated Article 21 of the Convention to the detriment of the Punta Piedra Garifuna community because, even though the State’s recognition of the community’s right to property is not in dispute in this case, the State has violated its obligation to ensure peaceful possession of their territory by freeing it of encumbrances and providing effective protection from third parties. This means that, from 1993 to date, the Punta Piedra Garifuna community not only has been unable to control the territory it has historically occupied effectively and peacefully, but also its members are experiencing a situation of insecurity that jeopardizes their rights to life and personal integrity. Added to this, the Commission indicated that the right to collective property included freeing the indigenous people’s ancestral territory of encumbrances; in other words, ensuring that they could effectively enjoy their traditional territory peacefully. 160. The representatives agreed with the Commission in general. They accepted the fact that the State has proposed solutions but, unlike the Commission, they argued that such solutions were not clearly defined by law or effective in practice; therefore, they were doomed to failure inasmuch as they were not appropriate mechanisms to provide an adequate answer. The State had failed to ensure peaceful possession of the indigenous territory since it had not investigated the complaints, had taken ineffective Cf. Letter of the Iriona municipality of June 3, 2013 (evidence file, folio 1496). Cf. Record of police inspection of June 3, 2013 (evidence file, folios 1497 and 1498); Request for information from the Ethnic Affairs Prosecutor of June 19, 2013 (evidence file, folio 1489) and Report of the National Directorate of Criminal Investigation of August 1, 2013, presented at the request of the Ethnic Affairs Prosecutor (evidence file, folios 1490 and 1491). 197 198 47