201. Following the visit, the State sent the Court a copy of five supposed property titles granted to people from the village of Rio Miel corresponding to the years 1991, 1992, 1993, 1998 and 2006 (supra para. 105). In view of the fact that the State had not mentioned them previously and there is no evidence of them in the cadastral reports or property titles in the file, the Court has no evidence to assess them. However, as indicated by the representatives (supra para. 105), this demonstrates the lack of clarity in the Honduran land registration system which could be permitting an overlap of titles in rural areas, with the social consequences that this entails as regards legal certainty and societal security. B.4 Conclusion regarding the guarantee of the use and enjoyment of collective property 202. Based on the above, the State is responsible for the violation of Article 21 of the American Convention to the detriment of the Punta Piedra community and its members, in view of its failure to ensure the use and enjoyment of communal property. C. Honduran property laws in light of Article 2 of the American Convention in relation to Articles 1(1) and 21 of this instrument C.1 Arguments of the Commission and the parties 203. The Commission argued that, despite the existence of constitutional and statutory provisions recognizing the right of the Punta Piedra community to communal property, and recognition of their traditional forms of land ownership, the community has not been able to use and enjoy its lands peacefully. The Commission noted that the indigenous peoples’ right to property is recognized by the following provisions: article 346 of the Constitution, article 92 of the Agricultural Sector Modernization and Development Act and articles 93 to 102 of chapter III of the 2004 Property Act. It also indicated that ILO Convention No. 169 entered into force in Honduras in 1995. In relation to the 2004 Property Act, the Commission alleged that the indigenous peoples had not been consulted about this and expressed its concern regarding its provisions because it established that “third parties who have a property title to land of these peoples and who have owned and possessed that land have the right to continue possessing and exploiting it,” and also that third parties on indigenous lands who do not possess any title may negotiate their presence with the community. Therefore, some provisions “render illusory the preferential right of indigenous peoples based on the ancestral possession of their lands and, furthermore, fail to facilitate their right to the collective ownership of an exclusively indigenous territory.” 204. The representatives did not agree with the Commission that the community had its rights guaranteed under domestic law. To the contrary, they considered that, according to international standards, domestic legislation did not ensure the territorial rights of the Garifuna people and failed to comply with the guarantee of respect for their rights. This was the case of the Honduran Constitution that privileged a development model that excluded the model followed by the indigenous peoples. The representatives also mentioned that article 92 of the 1995 Agricultural Sector Modernization and Development Act, “d[id] not adequately ensure these rights because, according to the preceding analysis, [it was] insufficient vis-à-vis the civil rationale underlying the existing regulations.” They also alleged that the indigenous peoples had not been consulted about the 2004 Property Act; rather “it was merely subject to a socialization process” during which the indigenous peoples had indicated 59