exercise the rights that correspond to them over their territories, given the limitations said to have been consummated through acts committed by third persons. This, it alleges, would presuppose a violation of the rights protected at Articles 8, 21, and 25 of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1 of the same treaty. 22. As regards the exhaustion of domestic remedies, it argues that the signing of the agreement entered into with the INA on December 13, 2001, presupposes the exhaustion of domestic remedies. In this regard, it argues that the failure to carry out the obligations assumed in agreements by government agencies is not susceptible of being alleged before the courts of justice. Accordingly, it indicates that given the lack of any judicial remedy that makes it possible to carry out those agreements, one should understand as exhausted the domestic remedies when, after a reasonable time, the State has not carried out the commitments assumed. 23. Finally, with respect to the position of the State that domestic remedies were not exhausted, it argues that the administrative procedure indicated by the State as pending is not a remedy to be exhausted because the consequence would be obtaining a title equal to what the Community of Punta Piedra already has. In addition, it argues that if the agreement signed with the INA were executive in nature, as the State indicates, it would represent the failure of the State to carry out the obligations assumed with the Garifuna Community. B. The State 24. The State of Honduras stated that without prejudice to recognizing the rights that correspond to the Garifuna Community of Punta Piedra over its territories, the petition is inadmissible, as domestic remedies have yet to be exhausted. 25. The State reports that on December 26, 1922, the Community of Punta Piedra was granted a right of use and enjoyment over its territory by means of a community title (título ejidal). 26. With respect to the subject matter of the petition, the State argues that the problem alleged stems from the arrival of the first members of the Community of Río Miel in the Garifuna territory. It indicates that said territory, over which the Garifuna Community of Punta Piedra enjoys a right of full ownership (de dominio pleno), was determined through two concessions made by the INA. In this regard, it confirms the information provided by the petitioner to the effect that on December 16, 1993, that community was granted full ownership over 800.64 hectares; and that subsequently, on December 6, 1999, it was granted full ownership of a rural property that had been lands with national legal status of 1,513.54 hectares, thus expanding its territory. It specifies that the territory adjudicated by the second title included areas occupied by the residents of the Community of Río Miel. 27. According to the State, it was involved in seeking a peaceful solution to the conflict that affects the communities of Punta Piedra and Río Miel and that, in that context, it had sought to activate various governmental mechanisms. During the working meeting held before the IACHR on July 20, 2007, the State reported on the efforts it had been making to reach friendly settlements with the inhabitants of the Community of Río Miel and on the difficulties they faced, since those community members reject the possibility of being evicted from the lands where they live. 28. Finally, the State argues that the conflict was resolved by entering into an agreement signed on December 13, 2001, before an ad hoc Inter-institutional Commission 10 whose members include, among others, the INA. It alleges that the agreement is in the nature of an out-of-court settlement. 29. With regard to the obligations stemming from that agreement, it reported that the INA had performed the appraisal of the improvements made by community members of Río Miel in the territory of the Garifuna community, so as to proceed to clearing the lands of non-indigenous 10 The State indicates that the ad hoc Commission was made up of representatives of the Social Ministries of the Diocese of Trujillo, the INA, and the organizations ODECO and OFRANEH 4