43 150. The Court verified, as indicated by the INA in the year 2001, that said area is located within the urban area of Tela,162 which is part of Plot A1 considered by that same institution traditional territory of the Community of Triunfo de la Cruz (supra para. 115). Moreover, the allocation of the 22 blocks over part of the Community’s traditional territory occurred after Honduras’ ratification of Convention 169 of the ILO. At the time of that event, Honduras had already acquired the international commitment to guarantee the right to property of indigenous communities over their traditional territories (supra para. 119). 151. Therefore, the Court concludes that the State is responsible for having violated the duty to guarantee the right to property of the Community of Triunfo de la Cruz, enshrined in Article 21 of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of the same instrument upon allowing the allocation of a title deed over a plot located within the territory acknowledged by a state body as traditional and occupied in part by the members of the Community. 152. Concerning this matter, the Court recalls that the State’s responsibility in relation to the area where the 22 blocks that were allocated to the workers’ union of the municipality are located must be understood without detriment to the rights of affected third parties to obtain a compensation or indemnification pursuant to Honduras’ domestic legislation. B.4.4. Conclusion 153. According to that indicated in the previous sections, the State is responsible for the violation to the duty to ensure the use and enjoyment of the territories granted to the Community in guarantee of occupation in the year 1979 and, as of the year 1996, for not guaranteeing the use and enjoyment of the Community’s traditional territories acknowledged as such by the INA in the year 2001, in relation to Article 1(1) of the same. B.5. The obligation to guarantee the right to consultation, in relation to the right to communal property of the Garífuna Community of Triunfo de la Cruz 154. With regard to the right to collective property, it is necessary to reiterate that it is not absolute and that, when States impose limitations or restrictions on the exercise of the rights of indigenous peoples to the ownership of their lands, territories, and natural resources, certain guidelines must be respected, which must be established by law, necessary, proportionate, and aimed at achieving a legitimate objective in a democratic society.163 Additionally, the first paragraph of Article 21 of the Convention establishes the right to property and points out as attributes of property its use and enjoyment and includes a limit to such property’s attributes, which is social interest. 164 Additionally, the second paragraph refers to the expropriation of property and the requirements to ensure that this action by the State may be considered justified.165 155. Moreover, when referring to the right to collective property of indigenous and tribal peoples, it must also be understood that a limitation or restriction to that right may not imply 162 Cfr. National Agrarian Institute, Memorandum of July 5, 2001 (evidence file, folio 1936). Cfr. Case of the Yakye Axa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay, para. 144, and Case of the Kichwa Indigenous People of Sarayaku v. Ecuador, para. 156. 163 Cfr. Case of Salvador Chiriboga v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objection and Mertis. Judgment of May 6, 2008. Series C No. 179, para. 55, and Case of Granier et al. (Radio Caracas Televisión) v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of June 22, 2015. Series C. No. 293, para. 336. 164 Cfr. Case of Salvador Chiriboga v. Ecuador, para. 55, Case of Granier et al. (Radio Caracas Televisión) v. Venezuela, para. 336. 165