Commission that the State’s reference to the administrative remedy to obtain compensation was not a suitable remedy for the community’s attempt to recover the occupied territory or to claim compensation. 32. In addition, the Court finds that the references to the exhaustion of domestic remedies made by the State in its answering brief were very general, without indicating the remedies that the presumed victims could file or the national authorities who had jurisdiction to decide them. The Court recalls that when the State refers to the existence of a domestic remedy that has not been exhausted, it must not only indicate this at the proper moment, but also identify the remedy in question precisely and demonstrate how it would be adequate and effective to protect the persons in the situation denounced. 22 Therefore, the Court rejects the preliminary objection filed by the State. 33. Also, the Court noted the following with regard to the preliminary objection related to the failure to exhaust domestic remedies in connection with the death of Félix Ordóñez Suazo: (i) the initial petition was lodged before the Commission on October 29, 2003; (ii) the death of Félix Ordóñez Suazo occurred on June 11, 2007; (iii) the petitioners informed the Commission of the death of Mr. Ordoñez the day after the fact; (iv) in the Merits Report, the Commission referred to the death of Félix Ordoñez Suazo and the corresponding criminal investigation; (v) in its answering brief, the State indicated that the respective criminal proceedings were still at the initial investigation stage, without justifying this delay, and (vi) the State has not informed the Court of any further progress made in the investigation into the death of Mr. Ordoñez. 34. Based on the foregoing, and taking into account that, according to the State, the criminal proceedings are at the initial investigation stage even though eight years have passed since they began, the Court finds that the exception to the exhaustion of domestic remedies set forth in Article 46(2)(c) of the American Convention is applicable, owing to the unwarranted delay in the criminal investigation. Therefore, the Court rejects the preliminary objection filed by the State and will rule in this regard in the corresponding section of the chapter on merits (infra paras. 291 to 302). V THE STATE'S PARTIAL ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF RESPONSIBILITY A. Arguments of the parties and the Commission 35. The State, in its answering brief, indicated that “it acquiesce[d] partially to the fact and claim consisting in the payment of improvements to free of encumbrances the [Punta Piedra [Garifuna] community’s right to ownership of its territory because, in this case, the State of Honduras has maintained an objective and consistent position that this right is not in dispute, and neither is the granting of a legal title recognizing this right; rather, the dispute relates to the obligation to ensure peaceful possession by granting clear title to the land of protecting it effectively vis-à-vis third parties.” 36. Regarding the facts, the State pointed out that on “December 16, 1993, [… it had] granted the Punta Piedra Garifuna community full ownership of an area of 800.64 hectares. Subsequently, on December 6, 1999, it granted full ownership of a further 22 Cf. Case of Expelled Dominicans and Haitians, supra, para. 30. 13