7 36. The State also maintains that part of the areas considered ancestral by the Garífuna communities are occupied by non-indigenous people who hold "legal documents supporting their ownership," such as documents drawn up by notaries or title deeds in fee simple that, it argues, cannot be ignored. The State further asserts that part of the process of land titling by the INA in favor of the Garífuna communities entails a phase of clearing the title of encumbrances (fase de saneamiento) in which payment is made based on the value of the land and of improvements made by its occupants. However, it indicates that this stage requires substantial financial outlays, which the INA cannot afford. 37. The State emphasizes that it does not deny the rights of the Garífuna people and that it is one of the few States to have issued fee simple deeds to indigenous communities, free of charge. The State points out that, even before ratification of ILO Convention No. 169, there were provisions under domestic law, in the Constitution and in agrarian legislation, that protect the rights of the indigenous peoples. It also asserts that "the right to property is directly related to legal certainty, because the image that indigenous peoples have of the land goes far beyond just the plot on which they perform collective work. When they talk of land they mean the territory in which they live, work, have their sources of water, breed animals; the place where their forests and resources are, where their livelihood comes from." 38. As regards the existence of two councils in the Community, the State maintains that both are made up exclusively of members of the Garífuna ethnic group, with differing views regarding representation of the Community, and it points out that, according to its own observations, “many of the Community's internal problems are due to the existence of two Councils, one legally constituted, the other not." 39. With respect to the protected areas, the State points out that, in order to establish the Jeannette Kawas, Punta Izopo, Cuervo, and Salado National Park, and in accordance with domestic law, a "consensus-building and socialization process" was conducted, beginning essentially with the neighboring communities. It adds that the Jeannette Kawas National Park authority comprises a series of institutions involved in conservation, including OFRANEH, which, according to the State is one of the principal representatives of the Garífuna Communities. The State deduces from that that the aforementioned Park was established with their approval. 40. The State further asserts that, pursuant to the Rules of Procedure of the National System of Protected Areas of Honduras (hereinafter "SINAPH"), it is currently working on definition of the boundaries and demarcation of a series of protected areas "with a view to safeguarding the communities' goods and services." It reports that the Secretariat of Natural Resources and Environment (hereinafter "SERNA") has denied a series of title deed claims requested by the INA on behalf of the Community in the area that includes the Punta Izopo National Park because the land is located in a special protection area. 41. As regards the Tela Bay Project, the State points out that the Master Plan for Development of Tourism in the area, drawn up in the 1970s before the bay was declared a protected area and before SERNA was founded, was "shared and shaped by a consensus-building process with the principal stakeholders in the area," including the Community of Triunfo de la Cruz. One of the commitments arrived at was to grant the Garífuna communities in the area a 7 percent stake in the project, in which the Councils would also be represented as partners. 42. Furthermore, the State maintains that the complaints filed by the petitioner were addressed through the domestic mechanisms provided for under Honduran law. Specifically, the complaint lodged by the petitioner with the Prosecutor's Office for Ethnic Groups on September 17, 1994 against the municipal authorities for having allotted 22.87 manzanas to the Municipal Workers' Union led to the case being dismissed as not constituting a criminal offense. 43. Regarding the criminal proceedings relating to the sale of Community land to IDETRISA, the State points out that the Attorney General's office brought a criminal action suit through the Special Prosecutor's Office for Ethic Groups against the former Mayor and members of the municipal council for