titled, the State was informed on several occasions about the continued and increasing third-party occupation of part of the territory claimed and titled, without acting with due diligence to protect this territory and/or reach a final solution. 186. Regarding the moment when the State should have freed the territory of encumbrances: in the instant case, the Court takes note that, prior to the second expansion title, the State failed to clearly demarcate the areas that were supposedly occupied by third parties in order to prevent and to resolve the problem of the increasing occupation by measures aimed at ensuring the use and enjoyment of the territory prior to its titling. Nevertheless, the Court considers that, although the measure of freeing the land of encumbrances should generally – and according to each case – be taken prior to titling a property, ultimately, it is once the territory has been titled that the State had the indisputable obligation to free the titled territory of encumbrances in order to ensure the Punta Piedra community’s effective use and enjoyment of their communal property. The State should have complied with this obligation ex officio and with extreme diligence, while also protecting the rights of third parties. 227 187. Regarding the measures adopted by the State: even though the State achieved the 2001 agreement and the 2006 undertaking between the parties in order to pay the improvements made by the Rio Miel community and relocate them, the Court notes that the State failed to assume this commitment as its inherent duty or take sustained measures to achieve its “effet utile”; rather, this reveals that the said undertaking was made as a formality preordained to be ineffective because, for example, when the National Congress was asked to adopt the corresponding budget, this was never done (supra paras. 118 and 123). Also, according to the State, it is the presumed victims who should file remedies in cases of non-compliance by the State, thereby delegating to the presumed victims the responsibility assumed by the State in the agreements reached (infra para. 230). 188. In this regard, the Court reiterates the acknowledgement made by Honduras, in which it stated that: The State of Honduras acquiesces partially to the fact and claim consisting in the payment of improvements to free of encumbrances the Punta Piedra community’s right to ownership of its territory because, in this case, the State of Honduras has maintained an objective and consistent position that this right is not in dispute and neither is the granting of a legal title recognizing this right; rather the dispute relates to the obligation to ensure peaceful possession by granting clear title to the land and protecting it effectively vis-à-vis third parties (supra para. 35). In this regard, the United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights has indicated the need for a legal framework compatible with Article 11 of the Covenant. The Committee considered that the procedural protections which should be applied in relation to forced evictions include: (a) an opportunity for genuine consultation with those affected; (b) adequate and reasonable notice for all affected persons prior to the scheduled date of eviction; (c) information on the proposed evictions, and, where applicable, on the alternative purpose for which the land or housing is to be used, to be made available in reasonable time to all those affected; (d) especially where groups of people are involved, government officials or their representatives to be present during an eviction; (e) all persons carrying out the eviction to be properly identified; (f) evictions not to take place in particularly bad weather or at night unless the affected persons consent otherwise; (g) provision of legal remedies, and (h) provision, where possible, of legal aid to persons who are in need of it to seek redress from the court. Cf. United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, General Comment No. 7 (1997), para. 15. 227 56