44. The events reported in this case have to do with effectively protecting the right of the Garífuna community to its collective property. The Commission has repeatedly declared that under international law in general and Inter-American law in particular, special protection is required for indigenous peoples and communities of African descent to enable them to exercise full and equal rights alongside the rest of the population. 8 The Court, in turn, has held with respect to indigenous peoples that it is essential for States to insure effective protection with due regard for their singularities, economic and social characteristics, special vulnerability, customary law, values, practices and customs.9 45. Reviewing the available documentation, the Commission concludes that the representatives of the Triunfo de la Cruz Community have repeatedly complained to the INA about actions of third parties that affect their peaceable and undisturbed enjoyment of their territory. The documents provided by the petitioner also show that legal actions were initiated as well to protect Community land from third parties.10 Nevertheless, the Commission notes that both administrative and judicial actions have been fruitless and the conflict has endured for over 10 years. 46. As stated, the rule requiring prior exhaustion of internal remedies is intended for the benefit of the State, for it seeks to forestall its appearance before an international body to defend against charges before having had a chance to remedy the problem on its own. In this case the State argued that the proper procedure to be exhausted by the petitioner before bringing the matter to the Commission was administrative and could be set in motion by the appropriate government agency on its own. The Commission notes that the situation complained of is more than 10 years old and has had many serious consequences for the members of the Garífuna Community of Triunfo de la Cruz even as the State, though it had been made specifically aware of that situation by the competent authorities, did not take the necessary measures to resolve the issue. 47. The Commission believes it is also important to note that the exceptions to the rule on exhaustion of domestic remedies in Article 46.2 of the Convention are strictly connected with the determination of possible violations of certain rights guaranteed in the Convention, such as the rights to a fair trial and to judicial protection. Article 46.2, however, because of its nature and purpose, is a provision that stands on its own vis-à-vis the Convention's substantive rules. Consequently, whether exceptions to the rule on prior exhaustion of domestic remedies are applicable is a question that must be answered prior to and separately from the analysis of the merits, inasmuch as it depends on a standard of review that differs from the standard used to establish a violation of Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention. The causes and effects of the inability to exhaust domestic remedies in the present case will be analyzed, as appropriate, in the IACHR report on the merits of the case, so as to establish whether they constitute violations of the Convention. 48. The Commission believes that the intent of the alleged victims to avail themselves of the internal remedies offered by the State for protection of their ancestral territory has been 8 IACHR, Resolution on "Special protection of indigenous populations. Action to combat racism and racial discrimination," cited in IACHR, Yanomami Case, Report N° 12/85, 1984-85 IACHR Annual Report, para. 8; Report on the Status of Human Rights of a Segment of the Nicaraguan Population of Miskito Origin, OEA/Ser.L/V/II .62, Doc. 10 rev. 3 (November 29, 1983); IACHR, Second and Third Reports on the Status of Human Rights in Colombia, 1993, 1999; Draft American Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, approved by the IACHR at its 95th regular session, February 26, 1997; 1997 IACHR Annual Report, Chapter II; IACHR, Report on the Status of Human Rights in Ecuador, OEA, Ser.L/V/II .96, Doc. 10 rev. 1, April 24, 1997, Chapter IX; IACHR Report N° 40/04, Case 12053, Merits, Indigenous Mayan Communities of the Toledo District, Belize, October 12, 2004. 9 I/A Court H.R., Case of the Indigenous Community Yakye Axa. Judgment of June 17, 2005. Series C No. 125, para. 63. 10 The documents provided by the petitioner and included in the IACHR case file show at least the following actions taken by the representatives of the Garífuna Community of Triunfo de la Cruz with regard to the alleged events: Request to the National Agrarian Institute of June 27, 1969, dossier No. 2000; complaint field with the Prosecutor for Ethnic Groups, dated September 17, 1994; criminal complaint dated June 11, 1996; complaint to the Ministry of Justice dated October 8, 1996; complaint to the Attorney General dated November 30, 1998; complaint to the Prosecutor's Office of the Municipality of Tela dated March 22, 2001; complaint to the Ministry of Justice dated February 18, 2002; complaint to the Special Prosecutor for Ethnic Groups and to the National Agrarian Institute dated February 18, 2002; complaint to the Prosecutor's Coordinator of the Justice Department of Tela, dated February 27, 2003. 7