6 of the power elite involved in these transactions, and the refusal of lawyers to defend the Community for fear of reprisals. 29. The petitioner argues that the actions the Community was able to lodge have not been effective, resulting in a continual violation of the right of the Garífuna Community of Triunfo de la Cruz to peaceably enjoy the territory it has traditionally occupied, even the part recognized by the State itself. The petitioner maintains that domestic legislation provides no appropriate mechanism for guaranteeing the Community's property rights or for affording adequate legal protection to its members. It points out that recognition of property rights over the Community's ancestral lands has been achieved through Agrarian Reform laws that recognize agrarian concepts rather than those pertaining to customary law. It adds that the Agrarian Reform Law envisages the concept of idleness or uncultivated land, which is the main ground for appropriating communal land. As most of the land was not being farmed, it was taken over by the INA for redistribution for peseants, thereby affecting the Garífuna. communities land and functional habitat. 30. Based on the above, the petitioner requests that the State of Honduras be declared internationally responsible for violating Articles 1, 8, 21, and 25 of the American Convention, using ILO Convention 169 as a complementary standard of interpretation. B. The State 31. For its part, the State argues that it has not violated the rights to property, judicial guarantees and judicial protection established in the American Convention to the detriment of the Community of Triunfo de la Cruz. It maintains that, through the National Agrarian Institute, "the body responsible for regulating land tenure on behalf of the indigenous communities and black peoples," it has taken steps to vindicate the ancestral lands of the indigenous peoples of Honduras, guaranteeing the rights established in the Political Constitution of the States and in Convention No. 169 of the ILO. 32. In particular, it points out that, on November 29, 1950, the Constitutional president of the Republic, without prejudice to the right of third parties, approved actions to claim and measure the land requested by the Village of Triunfo as communal land (ejido), amounting to 380.52 hectares, " with the Village being obliged to formally demarcate the corresponding boundaries separating the land from that adjacent to it." The State affirms that on September 28, 1979, the IMA granted the Community a deed guaranteeing occupancy of 126.40 hectares, thereby "recognizing the possession the Community had exercised since the last century." 33. It states that on October 29, 1993, the INA granted the community a definitive title in fee simple of an area of 380 hectares, 51 ares, and 82.68 centiares, and that on September 26, 2001 it granted it title to 234 hectares, 48 ares, and 76.03 centiares, divided into three lots, in response to the Community's request for an extension of title. The State emphasizes that it has granted the Garífuna Community of Triunfo de la Cruz fee simple title to a total area of 615 hectares in order to guarantee the "right to its territorial space." It adds that if the Community considers that its territory is larger, it should file the corresponding application with the INA, the state entity that will process it. 34. It states that the expansion granted to the Community of Triunfo de la Cruz in 2001 did not include an area of 408 hectares, 39 ares, and 10.20 centiares granted to the Municipality of Tela through INA resolution No. 055-89 of April 24, 1989, approved by the Honduran Institute of Tourism in resolution No. 002 of January 17, 1992, due to the fact that the expansion of the urban area was an act prior to the issuance of the title deed granted to the Community. 35. In addition, the State reports that on January 7, 2002, the Community asked for allocation, by way of expropriation, of an area totaling 22 manzanas that was granted in fee simple by the Municipality of Tela to its municipal labor union. It adds that, for that reason, the trade union objected to the enlargement, but its objection was overruled by the INA. On July 15, 2003, the INA admitted the request for allocation by way of expropriation and on December 7, 2007 the INA issued the expropriation resolution in favor of the Community.