the Rio Miel community without having conducted the prior consultation (supra paras. 149, 150 and 155). B.2.2.1 Complaint concerning land usurpation and threats to the detriment of the members of the Punta Piedra Garifuna community and complaint of threats against Paulino Mejía 304. Regarding the complaint concerning land usurpation and threats to the detriment of the Punta Piedra community, the Court has verified that, on April 13, 2010, the Ethnic Affairs Prosecutor issued an order requiring different procedures; in particular the inspection of the site of the facts (supra para. 151). Also, in relation to the complaint of threats against Paulino Mejía, on April 17, 2010, the Ethnic Affairs Prosecutor issued an order, sent to the DGIC agents on two occasions, requiring a series of pertinent initial procedures. 321 The Court notes that the investigations into the two complaints were conducted jointly; it will therefore analyze them in this way. 305. The Court notes that DNIC agents attached to the Ethnic Affairs Prosecution Service in Tegucigalpa inspected the area on June 3 and 4, 2013, more than three years after the two complaints had been filed. This was presumably the only procedure conducted in the investigation of both cases. During the inspection, the agents went to the Punta Piedra community and took the statements of four witnesses (supra para. 153) all of whom stated that, since 1993, part of the community’s territory had been occupied by third parties; namely, inhabitants of the area of Rio Miel. In particular, they stated that Alejandro, Efraín and Calín Ortiz had threatened not only different members of the community, but also Paulino Mejia to force him to abandon his lands, which bordered those they occupied, in the El Castillo sector in Punta Piedra. According to the statements, the Rio Miel occupants had issued death threats against the community 322 showing them their rifles, telling them that they “will never leave” and that if any of the community left where they were, they would kill them. 323 306. The DNIC agents could only take the statements of four witnesses because, due to lack of fuel, they were unable to return to the Punta Piedra area to conclude the planned procedures; in other words, they were unable to take Paulino Mejía’s statement; they did not inspect the area presumably usurped by the Ortiz family, and they did not fully identify the individuals who had been accused (supra para. 154). The agents even recorded that neither the DNIC offices in Trujillo nor the offices of the Public Prosecution Service in Trujillo, knew of, or had recorded or conducted procedures in relation to the complaints concerning land usurpation and threats. To date, the Court notes that no relevant procedure has been conducted after June 2013, almost five years after the facts, in violation of the principles of due diligence and reasonable time. 324 Among the most important: (a) identifying and taking the statements of the accused (Alejandro Ortiz, Efraín Ortiz and Calín Ortiz); (b) taking the statements of witnesses; (c) identifying and inspecting the site of the lots on which Paulino Mejía worked; the capacity in which they were handed over by the Punta Piedra community, and who possesses them actually, and (d) obtaining the community’s property titles. 322 Cf. Statement of Antonio Bernárdez Suazo of June 3, 2013, and Statement of Andrés Álvarez Bernárdez of June 3, 2013 (evidence file, folios 1655, 1659 and 1660). 323 Cf. Statement of Andrés Álvarez Bernárdez of June 3, 2013 (evidence file, folios 1659 and 1660). 324 In addition, referring exclusively to land usurpation to the detriment of the whole Punta Piedra community, the State advised that, in the opinion of the Ethnic Affairs Prosecutor, “the territory [referred to in the complaint of usurpation was] occupied by a Rio Miel peasant farmer community, which [was] also vulnerable and also deserv[ed] the State’s protection […]. In this regard, they agree[d] that the solution to this problem [was] not filing a criminal action, because the occupants […] could claim acquisitive prescription 321 86