58 legal claim which originates the judicial remedy, after a procedure in which evidence is tendered and there is debate on the allegation. The legal remedy was ineffective, since it did not recognize the violation of rights, it did not protect the applicants in the rights affected, nor did it provide adequate reparation. The court avoided a decision on the rights of the applicants and hindered their exercise of the right to legal remedy pursuant to article 25 of the Convention; c) almost a year after the second amparo remedy had been admitted, the Supreme Court of Justice ruled against that remedy without deciding on the merits, arguing that the applicants only objected to the initial granting of the concession, and that Court reached the conclusion, in this regard, that the remedy was time-barred, when actually the remedy objected to the lack of response to the territorial claim by the Community and the “alleged” ratification of the concession by the Regional Council of the RAAN in 1997; d) judicial protection pertains to the obligation of the States parties to ensure that the competent authorities comply with judicial decisions, pursuant to article 25(2)(c) of the Convention. However, in the only case included in the facts in this proceeding, in which there was a ruling on the amparo remedy, the State ignored the judicial decision issued in favor of the indigenous communities, thus breaching the abovementioned article of the Convention. Furthermore, the decision of the Supreme Court of Justice was based on omission of the procedural requirement set forth in article 181 of the Constitution, and it did not protect property rights regarding the area under that concession; e) the Nicaraguan authorities should have complied with the February 27, 1997 judgment in a timely manner and, therefore, they should have urgently and rapidly suspended any act which had been declared to be unconstitutional, so as to avoid that SOLCARSA cause irreparable damage in the lands of the Awas Tingni Community. However, they did not proceed in this manner. For two years, the Community suffered the continuation of a logging concession which negatively affected their traditional land tenure and their natural resources; f) the Commission was informed on May 6, 1998 of the suspension of the concession granted to SOLCARSA, a year and a half after the Supreme Court of Justice had ordered that suspension and after the Commission adopted the Report pursuant to article 50 of the Convention; g) The response of Nicaragua to the Report by the Commission constitutes an acceptance of international responsibility, insofar as it recognizes its obligation, when it points out that it is in the process of complying with the recommendations made in that report; h) Nicaragua does not allow the indigenous groups access to the Judiciary, and therefore it discriminates against them; i) There is no effective procedure or mechanism in Nicaragua for demarcation and titling of indigenous land, especially that of the Atlantic Coast communities. Lack of an effective mechanism for titling and demarcation of indigenous lands is clearly visible in the case of Awas Tingni. The complexity of the matter is no excuse for the State not to comply, for