5 and Oscar Brega, or unlawfully arrested, as in the case of Alfredo López. It adds that those actions created an atmosphere of fear and insecurity that persists in the area. According to the petitioner, IDETRISA built houses and fenced off the area to prevent Community members from using and farming the land. 23. The petitioner states that on September 17, 1994, the Community lodged a complaint with the Prosecutor's Office for Ethnic Groups against the illegal sales. It led to criminal charges being brought by the Attorney General's Office before the Court of First Instance in Tela on June 11, 1996 for ongoing abuse of office, fraud and aggravated fraud to the detriment of the public administration, the Garífuna Community of Triunfo de la Cruz, and private individuals. The petitioner points out that on October 15, 1996, an incarceration order was issued against the municipal officials who had taken part in the fraudulent sales. However, on appeal, the decision was reversed and that last decision was upheld by a higher court. No notice of this last decision was given to the Community, which found out about it through informal channels on July 8, 2003. 24. The petitioner further states that in 1986 the Community asked the INA to donate 25 manzanas of the guaranteed occupancy tract of land to the peseant cooperative association called “El Esfuerzo” (hereinafter "El Esfuerzo Cooperative"), made up of low-income women from the Community. The petitioner says that that land was allotted to the group of women on May 18, 1987 through a provisional deed of occupancy and that ever since then the women have cultivated the land to feed themselves and their families. However, the petitioner claims, with the acquiescence of the Municipality, third parties unlawfully sold that land to private individuals who then lodged complaints against the cooperatives for trespassing. The petitioner claims that members of the cooperative have repeatedly been threatened and have had their crops destroyed. It says those acts were reported to the Criminal Investigation Bureaus, to no avail. 25. It adds that, with a view to illegally acquiring the Community's land, the Municipality of Tela backed the establishment of a parallel Community Council and interfered with the election of its Management Board. The petitioner goes on to say that the parallel Management Board was registered by the Municipality and that, despite requests by the Community for registration of the Management Board it elected in its traditional Council, the Municipality has refused to register it and has confirmed the parallel Management Board with a view to it authorizing the illegal sales. 26. The petitioner maintains that the State is also responsible for violating the property rights of the Community and its members by decreeing the creation of a protected area, the Punta Izopo National Park, which includes land claimed by the Community. It adds that the protected area was established without the Community being given notice in an assembly and that that action has prevented legal reconnaissance of the area. The petitioner states that, although the Community and the State had an agreement on co-managing the Park that agreement has not been kept to and the establishment of the protected area has restricted access of members of the Community to Punta Izopo, to the detriment of their tradition and culture. 27. Furthermore, on pretext of executing tourism projects in the area, the Community is threatened with being deprived of its habitat and affected by profound changes to the environment. Specifically, the petitioner mentions execution of the Tela Bay project, which, it alleges, was not discussed in an assembly with the Community, although it runs alongside its ancestral lands, and which poses a grave environmental threat as it involves filling in 80 hectares of the Micos lagoon, causing serious flooding in the area. 28. The petitioner points out that in 1994, to stop the dispossession of their lands, the Community formed a Committee to Defend the Land of Triunfo (hereinafter "CODETT"). CODETT requested certification of the sale of Community land, collected testimony and documentary evidence, and reported cases to the Municipality, INA, and the Prosecutor's Office for Ethnic Groups, to no avail. The petitioner argues that there have been numerous obstacles to accessing effective judicial protection, such as permanent harassment by the authorities, the disappearance of dossiers, persecution of community leaders, the pressure exerted due to the expectation of considerable financial gain on the part