29. Article 46.1.a of the American Convention provides that In order for the IACHR to admit a petition under Article 44 of the Convention, domestic remedies must be pursued and exhausted in accordance with generally recognized principles of international law. The prior exhaustion rule applies when the national system has recourse available that is adequate and effective for remedying the alleged violation. However, Article 46(2) states that the prior exhaustion rule shall not apply when a) the domestic legislation of the state concerned does not afford due process of law for the protection of the right or rights that have allegedly been violated; b) the party alleging violation of his rights has been denied access to the remedies under domestic law or has been prevented from exhausting them, or c) there has been unwarranted delay in rendering a final judgment under the aforementioned remedies. 30. Pursuant to the IACHR Rules of Procedure and the legal precedents of the Inter-American system, whenever a State alleges failure to exhaust domestic remedies, it has the burden to indicate what remedies should have been pursued and also to prove that they are “adequate” to rectify the alleged violation; in other words, that the function of these recourses under the domestic legal system is suitable to remedy the alleged human rights violations that have been brought to the attention of the Inter-American system. The Inter-American Court has also held that it is not the task of the Commission “to identify ex officio which domestic remedies shall be exhausted, but instead it corresponds to the State to point out in a timely manner the domestic remedies that must be exhausted and their effectiveness. Likewise, it does not correspond to the international bodies to correct the lack of precision of the State’s arguments.”8 31. In the matter before the IACHR, it notes that the parties are disputing whether this requirement set forth in the Convention has been met. In fact, the State put forth an objection for failure to exhaust domestic remedies contending that INA-issued Resolution No. 145-2000 was not challenged or appealed by the Garifuna Community of San Juan. However, the petitioner argues that it has asserted its right to recognition of its property on many occasions, and has brought complaints for the inadequacy of the title granted in 2000 and the unlawfully granted titles, but it has not had effective access to theoretically available remedies and, therefore, it contends that the petition is admissible, based on the exception to prior exhaustion of domestic remedies set forth in Article 46.2.b of the Convention. 32. The Commission notes that the facts that are the subject of the instant matter are related to effective protection of the right to collective property of a Garifuna community, which for decades has been taking steps before State authorities first to get its ancestral territory recognized and second to be allowed the use and effective enjoyment of its rights. In the instant case, there is no dispute regarding the right to property of the Garifuna Community of San Juan. The issue pertains to the nature and scope of the obligation of the State of Honduras to provide effective protection to the collective property right of said community. In this regard, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (hereinafter, the “Court” or “Inter-American Court”) has ruled that “such protection of property, under Article 21 of the Convention […] places upon the State a positive obligation to adopt special measures that guarantee members of indigenous and tribal peoples the full and equal exercise of their right to the territories they have traditionally used and occupied.”9 33. Based on the analysis of the information and documents provided by the parties, as early as 1979 and 1984, the Community took action before the State authorities to get the INA to recognize these rights, which led to the granting of two “guarantees of occupation.” It is noted that the Community once again filed a titling request with the INA, which was misplaced by a State institution, along with the documents that allegedly prove its ancestral occupation and this misplacement was reported in 1997 to the Office of the Public Prosecutor and reported again and again to State authorities. The Community filed a new request with the INA, which gave rise to Resolution No. 145-2000 being issued on June 5, 2000, effectively awarding 65 of the 1,775 hectares claimed as ancestral territory. Additionally, the record shows that representatives of the Community and the petitioning organization, subsequently, continued to take action before the authorities filing a request in August 2002 with the INA. The record also shows that from 2002 to 2008, the Office of the Special Prosecutor for Ethnic Groups, and the DGIC of the Office of the Public Prosecutor received at least seven complaints for 8 IA Court of HR. Case of Reverón Trujillo v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment June 30, 2009. Series C No. 197, par. 23. Citing. ECHR, Bozano v. France, judgment of 18 December 1986, § 46, Series A no. 111. 9 IA Court of HR. Case of the Saramaka People v. Suriname. Judgment November 28, 2007. Series C No. 172, paragraph 91.