338. Nevertheless, owing to the violations declared in this judgment, the Court deems it pertinent to order, as it has in other cases, 347 that the State publish, within six months of notification of this judgment: (a) the official summary of this judgment prepared by the Court in Spanish, which the State must translate into Garifuna 348 and publish, once, in both languages in the Official Gazette and, in Spanish, in a national newspaper with widespread circulation in Honduras, and (b) this judgment, in its entirety in Spanish on an official website of the State, available for one year. 339. Furthermore, the Court finds it appropriate to establish, as in other cases, 349 that the State publicize the official summary of this judgment in Spanish and Garifuna by broadcasting it on a radio station with extensive coverage in the Punta Piedra community. This broadcast must be made on the first Sunday of the month for at least three months. The State must previously inform the representatives, with at least two weeks’ notice, of the radio station on which the broadcast will be made and the date and time. The State must comply with this measure within six months of notification of this judgment. E. Guarantees of non-repetition 340. The Commission asked the Court to order the State to “[a]dopt the necessary measures to prevent similar acts from happening in the future, in keeping with the duty to prevent and ensure the fundamental rights recognized in the American Convention.” In particular, it recommended that the State: (i) “adopt a simple and effective remedy that protects the right of the indigenous peoples of Honduras to claim and accede to their traditional territories and that permits the protection of these territories from actions by the State or third parties that infringe their right to property,” and (ii) “take the necessary steps to prevent the Punta Piedra Garifuna community and its members from being subject to discriminatory acts and, in particular, being exposed to acts of violence by third parties owing to their ethnic origin.” In its final written observations, the Commission emphasized that “some provisions of the 2004 Property Act could undermine the concepts of the indivisibility, imprescriptibility and inalienability included in the act itself. The [Commission] note[d] with concern [that] some of the provisions of the said act would allow for the possibility of non-indigenous persons obtaining recognition of ownership of indigenous territories based on continuous possession.” 341. In their pleadings and motions brief, the representatives asked that the State: (i) adopt effective mechanisms for the Garifuna people to claim their right to land ownership, respecting their own forms of customary law, practices and customs; (ii) repeal chapter III of the Property Act on the “Procedure for regularizing real estate for indigenous and Afro-Honduran peoples,” (iii) enact a law, agreed upon in consultation with the indigenous peoples, that conforms to Convention No. 169 and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP); moreover, Cf. Case of Cantoral Benavidez v. Peru. reparations and costs. Judgment of December 3, 2001. Series C No. 88, para. 79, and Case of Omar Humberto Maldonado Vargas et al., supra, para. 162. 348 Cf. Case of Nadege Dorzema et al. v. Dominican Republic. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of October 24, 2012. Series C No. 251, para. 263; and Case of Liakat Ali Alibux v. Suriname. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of January 30, 2014. Series C No. 276, para. 147. 349 Cf. Case of the Yakye Axa Indigenous Community, supra, para. 227, and Case of the Kuna Indigenous People of Madungandí and the Emberá Indigenous People of Bayano and their members, supra, para. 217. 347 94