2 CASE OF THE GARÍFUNA COMMUNITY OF TRIUNFO DE LA CRUZ AND ITS MEMBERS V. HONDURAS Table of contents I. INTRODUCTION OF THE CASE AND PURPOSE OF THE DISPUTE ......................................... 4 II. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT .................................................................................. 6 III. JURISDICTION ............................................................................................................... 8 IV. PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS .................................................................................... 8 A. REGARDING THE ARGUMENTS OF THE STATE STATING THAT THE COMMUNITY OF GARÍFUNA TRIUNFO DE LA CRUZ ARE NOT “NATIVE PEOPLE ” .................................................................................................................. 8 B. REGARDING THE FACTS RELATED TO THE “INDURA BEACH AND GOLF RESORT” PROJECT .................................10 V. EVIDENCE ....................................................................................................................... 11 A. DOCUMENTARY, TESTIMONIAL, AND EXPERT EVIDENCE ........................................................................11 B. ADMISSION OF THE EVIDENCE ....................................................................................................11 C. ASSESSMENT OF THE EVIDENCE ..................................................................................................13 VI. FACTS ............................................................................................................................ 15 A. THE GARÍFUNA PEOPLE IN HONDURAS AND THE GARÍFUNA COMMUNITY OF TRIUNFO DE LA CRUZ ......................15 B. THE PROCESS OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT AND TITLING OF THE LAND OF THE COMMUNITY OF TRIUNFO DE LA CRUZ AND ITS MEMBERS ............................................................................................................................... 19 B.1. Granting of a communal title over 380 hectares, 51 areas, and 82.68 square meters (1950) ............................................................................................................................19 B.2. Request of allocation during the first legislation of agricultural reform (1969) ....................19 B.3. Granting of the title of “guarantee of occupation” on 126.40 hectares during the second legislation of agricultural reform (1979) ..............................................................................21 B.4. Granting of a definitive title of full ownership over 380 hectares, 51 areas, 82.68 square meters (1993) ............................................................................................................................21 B.5. Requests to extend the title of full ownership and granting of a title of full ownership over 234 hectareas, 48 areas, and 76.03 square meters (1997-2001) ..................................................21 C. PROBLEMS PRESENTED WITH REGARD TO THE TERRITORY OF THE GARÍFUNA COMMUNITY OF TRIUNFO DE LA CRUZ AND ITS MEMBERS ........................................................................................................................... 23 C.1. Expansion of the urban radius of the Municipality of Tela and its alleged consequences regarding the traditional territory of the Community of Triunfo de la Cruz and its members .......23 C.2. Peasant associative production company “El Esfuerzo” ...................................................26 C.3. Alleged creation of a Board of Directors parallel to the Board of the Community of Triunfo de la Cruz ............................................................................................................................26 C.4. Creation of the protected area “Punta Izopo National Park” .............................................27 C.5. Situation of indigenous leaders and authorities for the defense of the traditional lands of the Community of Triunfo de la Cruz ........................................................................................28 C.6. “Laguna Negra” and “Playa Escondida” Tourism Projects .................................................28 VII. MERITS ........................................................................................................................ 29 VII-1. RIGHT TO COLLECTIVE PROPERTY (Article 21 of the Convention in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2) ......................................................................................................................... 29 A. ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES OF AND OF THE COMMISSION ............................................................29 B. CONSIDERATIONS OF THE COURT ............................................................................................31 B.1. Standards applicable to the right to communal property .................................................31 B.2. Considerations regarding the Community’s traditional territory ........................................34 B.3. The alleged lack of demarcation and delimitation of the lands titled in favor of the Community and the territories that were acknowledged as traditional by the State ....................................37 B.4. The alleged lack of protection of the Community’s territory with regard to third parties ......41 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 .....................................................43 VII-2. OBLIGATION to ADOPT DOMESTIC LEGAL PROVISIONS (Article 2 of the Convention, in relation to Articles 1(1), 21, 8, and 25)........................................................................... 50