8 Communities” group asserts that there is an overlap would not be marked until this situation has been resolved. Lastly, they indicated that the demarcation application submitted by the members of the Community within the framework of the Act No. 445 procedure had not resulted in compliance with the fourth operative paragraph of the Judgment. 24. That, during the private hearing on May 3, 2008, the representatives stated that, in February 2007, the Regional Council urged the State’s competent institutions to proceed with the demarcation and titling of the territory of the members of the Awas Tingni Community without delay. However, they indicated that the Community had not yet received the title and the demarcation and titling procedure was again at a standstill. In addition, they stated that, during recent months, the State had justified its lack of action by the alleged territorial overlap with another group of Miskita communities known as “Ten Communities.” They indicated that the claim made by “Ten Communities” is not new and that it had already been considered and rejected by the Regional Council of the North Atlantic Autonomous Region when issuing its resolution of February 14, 2007. They also stated that “Ten Communities” had never been able to establish valid, and that there was no justification for starting the dispute settlement stage anew. 25. That, in its observations, the Commission indicated that the State and the representatives agreed that the demarcation and titling process would be carried out according to the procedures established in Act No. 445 (supra Having seen paragraph 4). It indicated that, according to the diagnosis of ownership and use of the land, the members of the Awas Tingni Community were using almost 125,000 hectares for all their activities, especially hunting. The current area claimed is 94,394 hectares, which is 76% of the area used. 26. That in its observations presented on July 5, 2006, the Commission reiterated its concern because delimitation, demarcation and titling of the ancestral lands of the Community had not yet been carried out in accordance with their customary rights, values, uses and traditions. Although it had considered the State’s proposal regarding a site and area for the Communities designed to comply with the provisions of the Judgment, it stated that this proposal did not reflect what the Court had ordered. 27. That, during the private hearing held on May 3, 2008, the Commission indicated that the “situation of defenselessness of the Community is equal or worse than the one it was suffering when it resorted to the organs of the inter-American system,” on October 2, 1995. Also, it indicated that, despite the delivery of the Judgment, the territory continued without being delimited, demarcated and titled, and this had increased the presence of settlers within the Community’s ancestral lands, while third parties from outside the territory continued trying to exploit its forestry wealth. 28. That, during the said private hearing, the panel of judges recommended to the Inter-American Commission, the representatives and the State that they hold a meeting to reach an agreement on compliance with the fourth operative paragraph of the Judgment. Following this meeting, the parties delivered to the Court the “official record of the agreements,” which included the following points: (1) Within no more than two months, the State would comment on the claim of the “Ten Communities” in relation to the Resolution of the Regional Council of February 14, 2007. (2) When it has issued this comment, the phase of marking the boundaries will be concluded, within 40 days at most.