42 143. Similarly, on May 25, 1984 the INA issued Report 329/84, through which it stated that “the document presented [by the company Macerica] to prove its private ownership of the property Barra de Río Plátano is not a sufficiently valid title […] thus it can be assumed it is of the State’s domain” (supra para. 65). 144. Regarding the territory where the company Macerica is currently located, the Court verified that the Community of Triunfo de la Cruz could not fully exercise its right to use and enjoy the title in guarantee of occupation granted to it in the year 1979. This based on the fact that: i) said area was occupied by the company Macerica, ii) said area was in dispute since the year 1969, and iii) there was a title in favor of the company Macerica whose ability to prove possession of that plot was not clear. That situation lasted beyond the year 1982, moment as of which the State was obliged to adopt measures of protection of the rights and interests of the country’s indigenous communities and especially of the lands and forests where they were settled, pursuant to that stated in Article 346 of the Constitution (supra para. 108). 145. Therefore, the Court considers that the State is responsible for not having guaranteed the Community’s right to property concerning the title granted in guarantee of occupation in the year 1979, which overlaps with the area where the territory occupied by the company Macerica is located, in violation of Article 21 of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of the same. 146. The Court specifies that the State’s acceptance of responsibility for not having ensured the pacific possession of the territory granted in guarantee of occupation to the Community does not imply a pronouncement on the rights of individuals who already had a private title deed over part of those lands. In this matter, the Court refers only to the responsibility of the State of Honduras for having issued a title of occupation over a territory that could not be occupied in whole and concerning which there was not full legal certainty regarding its property. B.4.2. The sale of approximately 44 hectares to the company IDETRISA in the year 1993 147. As stated in the chapter on Facts, (supra chapter VI) between August 1993 and July 1995 the Municipality of Tela sold approximately 44 hectares of lands found within the area granted in guarantee of occupation in the year 1979, in favor of the company IDETRISA, for the execution of the “Club Marbella” tourism project (supra para. 74). 148. As in the previous chapter, the Court concludes that the Community of Triunfo de la Cruz could not fully exercise the right of use and enjoyment that results from the title granted in guarantee of occupation in the year 1979, since the Municipality sold, after the year 1979, part of that territory to the company IDETRISA for the development of tourism projects. Therefore, the Court considers that the State is responsible for not having ensured the Community’s right to property, in relation to the title granted in guarantee of occupation in the year 1979 that overlaps with the area where the territory occupied by the company Idetrisa is located, in violation of Article 21 of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of the same. B.4.3. The transfer of 22 blocks to the workers’ union of the Municipality of Tela 149. In what refers to the sale of 22 blocks to the workers’ union of the Municipality of Tela, it can be concluded from the evidence that on January 15, 1997, the Municipal Corporation of Tela agreed to transfer 22.81 blocks located in the territory reclaimed by the Community and occupied in part by it to the Employees and Workers’ Union (supra para. 78).