2 6. On March 14, 2006, the Commission approved Admissibility Report No. 29/06, which concluded that the petition referring to the Garífuna Community of Triunfo de la Cruz and its members was admissible. The report was forwarded to the parties on March 22, 2006, at which point, pursuant to Article 38.2 of its Rules of Procedure in force at that time, the Commission placed itself at the disposal of the parties with a view to facilitating a friendly settlement. 7. Following notification of the admissibility report, the IACHR received information from the petitioner on the following dates: May 30 and October 31, 2006; April 20, May 30, August 17, and August 28, 2007; May 19, June 12, September 26, and October 16, 2008; May 12, May 26, and June 3, 2009; July 19 and August 6, 2010; January 4, January 13, January 19, March 7, May 2, and May 24, 2011; and March 9, 2012. Those communications were duly forwarded to the State. The State's observations were received by the IACHR on the following dates: August 10, 2006; March 8, May 14, and August 16, 2007; January 4, 2008; February 6, 2009; October 20, 2010; and February 18, March 8, May 24, August 24, and October 28, 2011. Those communications were, in turn, duly forwarded to the petitioner. 8. During the processing of this case before the Commission, two public hearings were held and attended by both parties. The first, during the admissibility of the petition phase, was held on October 2 18, 2005, during the 123rd period of sessions of the IACHR . In the merits stage, a second public hearing 3 was held on March 2, 2007, during the 127th regular period of sessions of the IACHR . On that occasion, the petitioner submitted the testimony of three members of the Triunfo de la Cruz Community - Beatriz Ramos Bernardez, José Ángel Castro, and Jerson Selvin Benedit López- as well the expert reports of Edmund Taylor Gordon y Clarisa Vegas. 9. On March 8, 2007, the Commission received an amicus curiae presented by The Center on Housing Rights and Evictions and Minority Rights Groups International. A. Precautionary measures 10. During the hearing on admissibility of the petition held on October 18, 2005, the petitioner asked for precautionary measures to be granted to safeguard the rights of the Community. Specifically, the petitioner requested that the State be prohibited from entering into deeds and contracts involving the Community's real estate given the imminent danger of irreparable damage being done to the Community's cultural and physical survival. The petitioner also referred to the State's failure to intervene following the Community's complaints, the entry into force of a property law that would be detrimental to the rights of the Garífuna communities, and the new tourism mega projects in the area. On October 21, 2005, the petitioner submitted additional information relating to its request. 11. On November 10, 2005, the IACHR requested that the State submit its observations regarding the application for precautionary measures. On January 25, 2006, in a communication dated November 18, 2005, the State expressed the view that it was unnecessary to adopt precautionary measures because domestic protection mechanisms were sufficient to guarantee the Community's property rights. However, on March 30, 2006, the State reported that: [...] following the investigations carried out by the Office of the Special Prosecutor for Ethnic Groups and Cultural Heritage of the Office of the Attorney General (Ministerio Público), which led to the conclusion that the situation in Tela Bay, the area where the Triunfo de la Cruz Community is located, has changed and it is recommended that the measures requested by the petitioners 2 IACHR, Public Hearing on October 18, 2005 on “Petition 906/03 – Garífuna Community of Triunfo de la Cruz, Honduras”, 123rd period of sessions of the IACHR. 3 IACHR, Public Hearing on March 2, 2007 on “Case 12.548 – Garífuna Community of Triunfo de la Cruz, Honduras”, 127 period of sessions. See Hearing at: http://www.oas.org/en/iachr/default.asp. th