3 11. Within this context, the petitioner asserts that in December 1993, a group of peasants forcibly took possession of traditional crop-production lands or “trabajaderos” (‘work lands’) located on the banks of the Miel River (hereinafter “peasants or settlers of the Miel River”), which are part of the ancestral territory of the Garifuna Community of Punta Piedra. It alleges that this posed serious threats to the physical and cultural survival of the community. It claims that the National Agrarian Institute had granted legal title to the intruders for plots of land and these plots were then conveyed to a member of the armed forces, who in turn sold them to a palm tree processing company owner. 12. The petitioner emphasizes that the land encroachment has given rise to a situation of ongoing violence and insecurity in the Community, which has manifested itself in the form of threats and assaults against the Garifuna of Punta Piedra. As an example of the climate of conflict, it reports the murder of Félix Ordóñez Suazo in June 2007, allegedly at the hands of Rio Miel settlers, which was reported to the competent authorities and has allegedly gone unpunished. In this same context, it notes that Marcos Bonifacio, a member of the Community and witness to the aforementioned murder, has been the target of continuous death threats, which made it necessary to seek precautionary measures from the IACHR. 13. The petitioner asserts that the Punta Piedra Community has taken numerous actions with the State in order to recover the lands from encroachment. As a result of these efforts, it reports that on December 13, 2001, a “Commitment Agreement” (acta de compromiso) was entered into between the representatives of the Punta Piedra Community, Rio Miel peasants, the INA, the Garifuna organizations OFRANEH and the Organization for Ethnic Community Development (hereinafter “ODECO”) in order to work out a final solution to the conflict. It notes that in said document, the INA undertook to relocate the peasants of Rio Miel and compensate them for improvements made on the Garifuna lands they encroached upon, in the amount of 13,168,982.84 lempiras, based on the assessment conducted by the INA itself. It contends that, in order for the INA to honor said commitment, the Community itself requested the National Congress to grant the necessary funding and, consequently, the Congress approved a motion to create the appropriate budget item. It contends that even though “the Ministry of Finance apparently provided the money,” the INA did not move forward in resolving the situation, but used the resources instead for purposes other than payment of compensation. 14. The petitioner adds that in light of the breach of commitment, the Community and the petitioner subsequently had to engage in efforts to reach a new agreement with the State, which crystalized in the “Agreement of understanding” of September 28, 2006 wherein the INA once again made the commitment to clear the title to the ancestral lands of the Garifuna Community of Punta Piedra, but this commitment has not been honored. It further asserts that on March 14, 2007, representatives of the INA and other state agencies conducted an on-site visit to the area for the purpose of “restarting the negotiation process with the individuals of Rio Miel without the participation of the Punta Piedra Community.” It notes that on this occasion, the Rio Miel peasants opposed conducting a new assessment of the value. 15. In short, the petitioner asserts that despite numerous efforts made by the petitioner and the Punta Piedra Community, the State has not as yet complied with its commitments, which “has led to a resurgence of outbreaks of violence in the area” and “has intensified the existing racism by mestizos toward the Garifuna.” The petitioner stresses that “the constant lack of effective protection by the State in order to safeguard the rights of the Punta Piedra Community and the lack of response to the incessant conflict over the ancestral territory of the Community has led to increased insecurity and violence in the area and has provoked violent threats, confrontations and deaths.” 16. Concerning the alleged violation of Article 21 of the American Convention, the petitioner contends that the issue of land tenure stems from the impediment to peaceable possession of the territory historically occupied by the Garifuna Community as a result of encroachment of third parties. It claims that even though titling of collectively-owned lands constitutes the essential starting point, the formal titles are not in and of themselves enough to ensure in practice “the culture, economy, land and a social security for the Garifuna.”