petition be found admissible, on the grounds of the exceptions to the requirement of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies provided for in Article 46.2.b of the Convention. B. The State 19. In response, the State of Honduras alleges that, based on the request for title filed by the Community, the INA did grant a fee simple property title to the Community over the area determined through the appropriate administrative procedure and that this decision was not challenged in the domestic courts. It contends that, consequently, domestic remedies were not exhausted, as required under Article 46.1.a of the American Convention. 20. In particular, it argues that on April 3, 2000, the Garifuna Community of San Juan filed, through its legal representative, a request for fee simple property title with the Regional Agrarian Office for the Atlantic Coast Zone, which was assigned case file number 54.312. It claims that in said request, the community did not request “ownership over a specific plot of land,” but instead requested “that the respective field inspection be conducted as established by law” and “to perform the surveying and second measuring of the requested property.” It argues that, accordingly, on April 18, 2000, the INA began the appropriate proceedings and on that same date “an inspection and survey of boundaries” was conducted, at which it claims the President and Secretary of the Community appeared, as well as several members thereof. 21. As for the misplacement of case file 27.660, while not denying the claim of the petitioner, the State alleges that the INA opened a new case file under the number 54.312. It contends, in the submission filed on April 11, 2008, that “steps are being taken to move forward in the search for the person responsible for misplacing it,” through inquiries conducted by investigators of the Unit of Ethnic Groups and Cultural Heritage of the Directorate of Investigation. The State also claims that when these inquiries are completed, a final report will be issued. 22. The State asserts that, as a result of the proceeding under case file 54.312, it was determined that the area that was covered in the request filed by the Community totaled 328 hectares, and 3187.87 square meters. It claims that this surface area was reduced “because other individuals owning plots of land presented their respective documents” and because “other properties are under dispute,” and consequently what “remained was a total area of three plots on 62 hectares and 6709.68 square meters.” It notes that on June 5, 2000, the INA issued Resolution No. 145-2000 in which it awarded “definitively and without valuable consideration” to the Garifuna Community of San Juan, a plot of land of 328 hectares and 3187.87 square meters, “excluding 265 hectares and 6,478.06 square meters, which belong to other individuals who are listed in the Resolution.” The State asserts that on June 6, 2000, the Executive Director of INA issued the respective final title of property, which was recorded in the Real Property and Business Register of Tela. 23. The State contends that INA Resolution No. 145-2000 was not challenged or appealed by the Garifuna Community of San Juan, by means of the remedies provided for under the Law of Administrative Procedure and the Law of Agrarian Reform, which consist of “a motion for reconsideration, a motion to appeal and an objection” and once these remedies are exhausted, in the respective judicial body. It also notes that should it be deemed that “the land that the State granted them does not conform to the right they are entitled to …, [they may] request through an administrative procedure, the respective expansion or rectification.” In this regard, the State mentions that they must, first, “request the nullification of said title by filing the appropriate civil suit” and then, “bring the appropriate administrative action so that the right they are attempting to assert is recognized.” Consequently, the State requests that the petition be found inadmissible, inasmuch as it has not fulfilled the requirement of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies, as set forth in Article 46.1.a of the American Convention. 24. As for the arguments concerning the “death of the young men Gino Eligio López and Epson Andrés Castillo, and the alleged assault on the young girls,” it contends that it is out of order to include these issues in this petition; but that based on Article 29.c of the IACHR Rules of Procedure, these allegations must instead be severed from the petition and a new proceeding must be opened, should it meet the requirements set forth in Article 28 of the aforementioned Rules of Procedure.