Xucuru indigenous people. In this regard, the IACHR notes, firstly, that the petitioners have not submitted detailed or specific information about these actions, and therefore it’s connection with the subject-matter of this case is not clear nor the way in which they have exhausted domestic remedies in regard to those allegations. While the Inter-American Commission has some flexibility to extend the subject-matter of a petition under its knowledge when in comes to supervening events directly related to the case under consideration, provided that the right to defense of the State is guaranteed. In this case and under the described circumstances, the Commission considers that it does not have sufficient elements to proceed in that manner. 65. On the other hand, during the processing of the case and particularly due to the precautionary measures MC-372-02, the parties submitted information on the context of tension, insecurity and violence that has characterized the process of demarcation of the Xucuru indigenous territory. In this regard, the IACHR notes that in the present case, even though related, the precautionary measures and the pending case are different. The IACHR notes that during the proceedings on the admissibility of the petition, the petitioners made reference to the facts of insecurity and violence expressly stating that they did so by way of context. At the merits stage, however, they presented substantive arguments on these facts, like the deaths and investigations that took place in the framework of the demarcation process. While the Commission has included a specific section on these established facts in this report, it considers that they offer greater elements on the circumstances in which the alleged harm to the ancestral property took place. Taking into account the above elements and the lack of sufficient information about the alleged facts, the allegations made and the processes opened in response, will continue to be treated by the Commission them as context enabling it to perform independent determinations of admissibility and merits of these events, as it has done in other cases65. B. Article 21 of the American Convention, in relation to Articles 1.1 and 2 of the same treaty, and Article XXIII of the American Declaration; and Article 5 of the American Convention in relation to Article 1.1. of the same instrument 1. The territorial rights of indigenous peoples in the Inter-American System of Human Rights 66. The jurisprudence of the inter-American human rights system has repeatedly recognized the right to property of indigenous peoples over their ancestral lands, and the duty of protection set forth in Article 21 of the American Convention. In this regard, the IACHR has stated that indigenous and tribal peoples have a right to communal property on lands they have traditionally used and occupied, and that the character of this right is dependent on the modalities of use and land customary use 66. It is also necessary to note that as has consistently been established by the organs of the Inter-American system, the indigenous territorial property is a form of property that is not based on official recognition of the State, but in the use and possession of traditional lands and resources; the territories of indigenous and tribal people "belong to them by use or ancestral occupation"67. The right of indigenous communal property is also based on indigenous legal cultures and their ancestral property systems, regardless of the state recognition; the origin of the property rights of indigenous and tribal peoples is therefore in the customary system of land tenure, which has traditionally existed between the communities68. As a result, the Court has stated that "traditional possession of indigenous over their land is equivalent to the title of full domain granted by the State"69. Report No. 76/12, Case 12,548, Merit. Garifuna community Triunfo de la Cruz and its members. Honduras. Available at: http://www.oas.org/es/cidh/decisiones/corte/12.548FondoEsp.pdf. 66 IACHR. Report No. 40/04, Case 12.053, Maya Indigenous Communities of the Toledo District (Belize), October 12, 2004, par. 151. See inter alia Commission, Report No. 75/02, Case 11.140, Mary and Carrie Dann (USA), December 27, 2002, par. 130; and IACHR. FOLLOWUP REPORT - ACCESS TO JUSTICE AND SOCIAL INCLUSION: THE ROAD TOWARDS STRENGTHENING DEMOCRACY IN BOLIVIA, OAS/ Ser/L/V/II.135, Doc 40, August 7, 2009, par. 160. 67 IACHR, ACCESS TO JUSTICE AND SOCIAL INCLUSION: THE ROAD TOWARDS STRENGTHENING DEMOCRACY IN BOLIVIA. OEA/Ser.L/V/II. Doc. 34, 28 June 2007, par. 231. 65 See, inter alia, Court HR, Case of the Saramaka People vs. Suriname. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 28, 2007. Series C No. 172, par. 96; IACHR, Arguments before the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in the case of Awas Tingni v. Nicaragua. Cited in: IACHR, Case of the Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community v Nicaragua. Merits, Reparations and Costs. 68 16