4 measures aimed at obtaining additional information about the situation of the presumed victims and the places where some of the alleged events took place. 6 13. In this case, the State had requested a diligence be carried out in the following terms: “in order to facilitate adjudication of the case, […] to have a fair judgment according to the legal reality, […] it carry out an inspection in loco to verify respect to the precautionary measures ordered by the Inter-American Commission, […] the physical reality of the communities, the protected areas ordered and turned into national parks, the lifestyle and how the Garífunas and non-Garífunas live side by side.” The Court granted this request and ordered the diligence in situ given the nature of the controversies and its complexities, as well as the need to have more evidence. Specifically, its purpose was to: a) observe some of the areas of the territory claimed by the Community, and b) hold a meeting with the parties, the Commission, and different authorities and residents.7 14. In this judgment, the Court established that the diligence in situ had been valuable because it “offer[ed] a general vision of an important illustrative nature that can dimension, understand, and delimit the specific facts that make up the basis of the alleged violations presented to it.”8 More specifically, through the information obtained from this diligence it was able to verify that the “Indura Beach and Golf Resort” tourism project was not located within the traditional territory claimed by the Community. Upon carrying out the diligence in situ, the Court could determine that “this tourism project was located on the other side of the Tela Bay, several kilometers away from the Triunfo de la Cruz Community and the territories in controversy in this case.” Therefore, the Court did not go on record regarding the alleged violations related to this tourism project. 9 15. Additionally, from the information obtained during the mentioned diligence regarding the “Playa Escondida” tourism project, the Court “could verify the location and nature of the buildings”10 and “it was verified that the construction had been finished and it was occupied.”11 On the other hand, it could not verify the exact location of the real estate project “Laguna Negra” during the visit. 12 16. If the Court had not carried out the diligence in situ and, thus obtained the necessary information, it would not have been able to verify the circumstances and facts of the case corresponding to the lands in dispute and it could not have established the merits of the alleged violations to human rights, as well as the possible appropriateness of certain measures of reparations. 17. Due to the complexity of the cases related to traditional lands of indigenous and tribal peoples, especially when they are partially occupied by third parties, it is 6 Cfr. Case of the Kichwa Indigenous People v. Ecuador. Merits and reparations. Judgment of June 27, 2012. Series C No. 245, para. 20. 7 8 9 10 11 12 Paras. 15 to 16 of the judgment. Para. 38 of the judgment. Para. 27 of the judgment. Para. 89 of the judgment. Para. 165 of the judgment. Para. 89 of the judgment.