35 them, and in 1950 that request was approved over a territory covering an approximate extension of 380 hectares, in the nature of common land; b) in 1969, the Community presented before the INA a request for the creation of an “agricultural population center” over an approximate area of two hundred blocks to the East of the territory granted as common land; c) the Community presented a request before the INA that resulted in the granting, in 1979, of a title in “guarantee of occupation” over 126.40 hectares, located on the Eastern end of the lands previously granted as common land; d) in 1993 the Community was issued a “definitive title deed in full ownership” over the approximately 380 hectares granted as common land in 1950; e) in 1997 the Community presented before the INA a request to obtain a title of full ownership over approximately 600 hectares; f) in 1998, the Community presented a request for full ownership over a piece of land of 126.40 hectares it already possessed in guarantee of occupation; g) in 2001, the INA granted a definitive title in full ownership over approximately 234 hectares, divided into three areas (designated Plots A2, A3, and A4 in a map prepared by the INA)144 (supra para. 70), and h) prior to granting the titles in the year 2021 over the mentioned areas A2, A3, and A4, it can be seen in the evidence that in January of that year the Garífuna Community of Triunfo de la Cruz requested an extension of the title of full ownership that had been granted to it in the year 1993, without there being precise knowledge of the extension that corresponds to that request (supra para. 71). Therefore, since 1946 the Community has presented at a national level different requests for the allocation of lands, which in total add up to approximately 980 hectares, of which it was granted around 614 hectares in “full ownership” and 126 hectares in “guarantee of occupation.” 111. However, and without detriment of the above, the Court confirmed that the representatives and the Commission stated that the Community’s traditional territory should have an extension of 2840 hectares. It can be proven that this evaluation is done based on a report prepared by the Central American and Caribbean Research Council (CACRC) on the Community’s traditional lands in the year 2002 (supra para. 55), even though only a report from that same institution from the year 2006 that includes a map of the 2002 report, which refers to the 2840 hectares, was forwarded.145 112. Similarly, the Court points out that said information was included for the first time during the processing of the case before the Commission, in an annex to a brief forwarded by the petitioners to the Commission on May 23, 2006.146 On its part, the State rejects that the Garífuna territory is the one indicated given that the report of the CARC “is not a definitive document, but an approximation whose content is based on the unilateral version of the interested parties.” 113. With regard to the evidence used as grounds for the report of the CARC of 2002, it does not specify the sources for the elaboration of the above-mentioned map; the report of the World Bank’s Inspection Panel only indicates that the “study/diagnosis of lands carried out by the Central American and Caribbean Research Council (CACRC), was based on a participative method in order to map the territorial claims of 25 Garífuna and Misquita communities along the Northern coast.”147 Cfr. National Agrarian Institute, Memorandum, of July 5, 2001 (evidence file, folios 1938 and 1941), states that Plots A3 and A4, requested by the Community in its expansion, are located within the Punta Izopo national park. 144 Cfr. Central American and Caribbean Research Council, “Ethnography of the Community of Triunfo de la Cruz” (evidence file, folios 276 to 297). 145 146 Cfr. Evidence file (folio 3347). World Bank Inspection Panel, Research Report – Honduras Land Management Program, Report N° 39933HN of June 12, 2007 (evidence file, folio 149). 147