4 17. In connection with Article 2 of the American Convention, it argues that national legislation includes no specific provision that may be applicable to indigenous peoples and that the domestic law is “inadequate for the achievement of indigenous territorial rights,” because “it does not expressly recognize the existence of collective rights [and] only contains scattered provisions with respect to ethnic peoples.” As examples of this, it cites Article 92 of the Law of Agricultural Modernization and Development, Article 65 of the Agrarian Reform Law, and Article 71 of the Environmental Law. 18. With regard to the right to judicial protection, the petitioner claims that no independent institutions exist in Honduras which, in addition to granting titles, settle existing disputes by ensuring the demarcation of and compensation for lands. It contends that the complaints filed pertaining to the acts of violence against members of the Community, such as the murder of Félix Ordóñez, remain in impunity. Consequently, it asserts “the serious crisis that Honduras is suffering in the area of application of justice places us, the indigenous peoples, in a weak position, which is gradually leading us to disappear as a differentiated culture.” 19. It concludes that the “State has shown that it has been aware of the territorial dispute in Punta Piedra for at least 15 years and, thus far, has not taken the necessary measures to effectively ensure and protect the collective rights that allow for the peaceable use and quiet enjoyment of the ancestral territories of the Punta Piedra Community. Based on the foregoing arguments, it requests that international responsibility be found for violation of Articles 21 and 25 of the American Convention, in connection with Articles 1.1 and 2 thereof, using ILO Convention 169 as a complementary interpretative norm. B. The State 20. In response, the State alleges that under the rule of law and abiding by international treaties, “it has always taken into account the legal nature of ownership rights of [the] Community [of Punta Piedra],” which it claims has been demonstrated by the granting of legal title to it. It contends that the issue of land tenure began with “the arrival of the first [peasant] settlers of the community known as Rio Miel, who are known to the residents of Punta Piedra as ladinos.” It adds that, in light of this arrival, several efforts have been made to settle the dispute and clear title to the lands. 21. Specifically, the State notes that on December 26, 1922, in enforcing the Agrarian Law that was in effect at the time, it granted the Community communal property title (título ejidal) to an area totaling 800.64 hectares for its use and enjoyment and that, on December 16, 1993, the INA upgraded said title to fee simple absolute, that is full title. It asserts that as an “expansion of their territory,” on December 6, 1999, the INA granted the Community a second legal title in fee simple to a rural tract of land, which legally belonged to the Nation, encompassing 1,513.54 hectares and bordering the northern boundary of the previously granted land title. 22. It claims that, within the perimeter of the expansion awarded to the Community in 1999, “an area of approximately 670 hectares was included, the possession of which the residents of the Rio Miel Community held and hold as of the present time.” It notes that, consequently, this area was excluded from the legal title granted, which stipulated that “the State may dispose of it [this area] in order to legalize its tenure on behalf of any persons that may fulfill the legal requirements.” However, it contends that, subsequently, the title was cleared to invalidate the part excluding the hectares occupied and exploited by the Rio Miel peasants and, thereby, the entire area became owned in fee simple by the Punta Piedra Community. It emphasizes that the land area titled to Punta Piedra totals 2,314.18 hectares, “of which the Village of Rio Miel occupies only 278.40 hectares […] and, therefore, the area over which the Community is unable to exercise its territorial rights of use and enjoyment and possession is negligible.” 23. The State notes that in order to reach a solution to the dispute, on April 7, 2001, an ad hoc Inter-Institutional Commission was created and was made up of representatives of the INA, the Garifuna Community of Punta Piedra, the town of Rio Miel, OFRANEH and ODECO. It adds that said Commission was successful at getting an agreement signed that is equivalent to an “out-of-court