crimes linked to third party occupation and acts on the ancestral lands of the Community (see supra footnote 3). 34. The Commission notes the State alleged that in not challenging INA Resolution No. 145-2000, there was failure to exhaust domestic remedies of an administrative nature and mentioned, in general terms, that these remedies are set forth in the Law of Administrative Procedure and in the Law of Agrarian Reform, and consist of “a motion for reconsideration, a motion to appeal and an objection,” though it did not prove whether they were adequate and effective to remedy the alleged violations. On the contrary, the information available to the IACHR suggests ineffectiveness of domestic remedies, inasmuch as the Community’s territorial claim before the INA dates back to at least 1979 and for decades the Community has filed no less than five request for recognition of its ancestral territory, which led to the titling of 65 of the 1,775 hectares it was claiming as its own. It is also noted that Honduras has not conveyed to this Commission what the suitable judicial remedy would be offered under domestic law and, accordingly, needs to be exhausted. The references to the judicial actions that could have been brought by the alleged victims, once administrative remedies have been exhausted, have been formulated in generic terms.10 The State has not proven in any of these instances that such remedies are adequate to cure the issue raised in the petition concerning recognition of the historic possession of a Garifuna community; the titling, demarcation and delimitation; as well as the use and quiet enjoyment of their property. 35. In view of the foregoing, the IACHR understands that the alleged victims repeatedly requested recognition and protection of their territory from the State but finds that no adequate and effective mechanisms were available to them in order to demand from the State the protection of their territory they were requesting. The IACHR notes that in this process of filing their claim, the Community and the petitioning organization faced many difficulties, such as the alleged misplacement of the documentation regarding historical occupation; as well as alleged acts of intimidation, harassment and violence against members and leaders of the Community, which were reported repeatedly to the competent authorities. In short, the IACHR finds that Honduras did not make available to the alleged victims any remedy that would make it possible to assert the right alleged to be violated, which under Article 46.2.a of the American Convention, constitutes grounds for an exception to the rule of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies. 36. Additionally, the petitioner alleged that, in this context of defending the Community’s property and the heightened interests of third parties in their ancestral lands, numerous threats and acts of harassment were made against members of the Community and, especially, its leaders. The case file shows many complaints brought before the Office of Public Prosecutor by Community leaders for death threats, attempted homicide, harassment and acts of violence allegedly committed by private individuals (see above, footnotes 3 and 4). Among other incidents, the petitioner reports the attempted homicide on April 14, 2007 of five Garifuna youths, one of them the daughter of the President of the Civic Association of San Juan, by alleged “hit men.” It claims the incident was reported to the Preventive Police and classified as an attempted homicide. The State, in response, did not make any reference to the response given by the authorities to these reports. As the IACHR noted above, under its Rules of Procedure and the legal precedents of the Inter-American system, when the State alleges noncompliance with this requirement, the burden is on the State to prove adequacy and effectiveness of the domestic remedies to be exhausted. Notwithstanding, in the instant case, in light of information provided by the petitioner regarding several complaints brought from 2006 to 2008, in other words, seven to five years after their filing, the State has not indicated to the IACHR any steps taken to effectively investigate the alleged crimes, determine who is responsible for them and apply the appropriate punishment in response to the complaints that have been filed. 37. The petitioner also alleged the extrajudicial execution of Gino Eligio López and Epson Andrés Castillo by agents of the Honduran Army, committed on February 26, 2006. It claims that, even though witnesses concur in attesting to the involvement to varying degrees of seven officers and soldiers of the Army, and of one civilian, on November 19, 2007, two soldiers that had carried out the order and a second lieutenant were found guilty of murder, while this officer was acquitted of the charges for the crimes of abuse of authority 10 IACHR. Admissibility Report No. 63/10, Petition 1119/03 –Garífuna Community of Punta Piedra and its Members (Honduras), March 24, 2010. Par. 43.