37 146. The IACHR notes that the conflicts and theft of the Community’s ancestral territory have had a detrimental effect on the traditional life style of the Garífunas of Triunfo de la Cruz, as well as on the highest traditional expressions of its culture. According to information provided by the parties, “cassava bread can no longer be produced as easily as before for lack of land on which to plant and harvest cassava and the land is a central and essential part of the Garífunas’ unique way of life 168 throughout the more than two centuries of their history.” 2. Community Parallel Management Board of the Community Council of the Triunfo de la Cruz 147. As the IACHR has noted previously, throughout the whole process of attempts by the Community of Triunfo de la Cruz and its members to recover their ancestral territory, the Municipality of Tela has systematically disregarded their ancestral occupancy and engaged in actions clearly opposed to their territorial claims. At least since the late 1970s – as attested by Decision No. 164 of the INA in 1979, taken at the behest of the Municipality –, the latter sought to expand its urban perimeter to include 169 ancestral territory of the Community. The expansion of the municipal core in 1989 led – as has been conclusively proved – to the Municipality of Tela conducting numerous sales of land historically occupied by the Triunfo de la Cruz Community, despite the constant opposition and objection shown by its authorities and members. 148. In that context, according to the information at the IACHR’s disposal, in February 2005, the General Assembly of the Community Council – the highest authority according to Article 9 of its Statute – elected the slate headed by José Ángel Castro as the Management Board of the Council for 170 2005 to 2007. Information provided by the petitioner and not contested by the State indicates that this Management Board was registered in the Municipality of Tela. 171 However, according to the communiqué issued on March 30, 2006 by the elected Management Board, the group that lost the election had allegedly sponsored the creation of a “parallel community council,” sympathetic to the financial interests of the Municipality and tourism entrepreneurs, headed by a member of the Community whom the IACHR 172 will refer to as “BM”, for the purpose of selling Community land. authorities had participated in the transaction because it was a matter of a private deed of sale that is not registered in the Public Registries. The petitioners answers that “Despite the private nature of the transaction alleged by the State, it is evident that the State is involved through the Municipality of Tela, in the latter’s collection of taxes on land transactions, defying the precautionary measures granted by the Honorable Commission.” 168 Annex 2. Study by the Caribbean Central America Research Council on the “Ethnography of the Triunfo de la Cruz Community”. Appendix 1 of the petitioner’s written communication of May 23, 2006, received by the IACHR on May 30, 2006. 169 As stated by expert Edmund Taylor Gordon in the hearing before the IACHR, this was due to the municipal governments’ need to expand in order to be able to sell land and collect land taxes, so as to have revenue to finance government activities. This was the beginning of the political and economic parallelism. On the political front, to this day there exists a parallel Council. Economically, when foreigners arrived and the land acquired value for tourism purposes, a parallel private property system emerged in this Community. IACHR, Public Hearing dated March 2, 2007 on “Case 12.548 –Garífuna Community of Triunfo de la Cruz, Honduras”, 127th period of sessions. Expert appraisal by Edmund Taylor Gordon. 170 Annex 86. Communication from the Pro-Improvement Community Council of Triunfo de la Cruz on March 30, 2006. Appendix 21 of the petitioner’s written communication of May 23, 2006, received by the IACHR on May 30, 2006. Annex 87. Comunication from the Pro-Improvement Community Council of Triunfo de la Cruz to the Governor of the Department of Atlántida on April 19, 2006. Appendix 24 of the petitioner’s written communication of May 23, 2006, received by the IACHR on May 30, 2006. 171 IACHR, Public Hearing dated March 2, 2007 on “Case 12.548 –Garífuna Community of Triunfo de la Cruz, Honduras”, 127th period of sessions. Testimony of José Ángel Castro. Annex 88. Public statement by the Management Board of the Community on May 21, 2009. Annex of the petitioner’s written communication dated June 2n, 2009, received by the IACHR on June 3, 2009. 172 On this, in a public statement dated March 30, 2006 the Management Board of the Community stated that: “the Nationalist Party-oriented Municipal Mayor’s Office proceeded to register the parallel board to suit the interests of a small group of alleged microentrepreneurs in the tourism industry with the same political affiliation – just like the current municipal administration in Tela – who, in light of the alleged arrived of tourism industry investments in the area, are scheming to overthrow councils and in this way consolidate the current eviction of the Garífuna communities in the area.” Annex 86. Communiqué of the Pro-Improvement Community Council of Triunfo de la Cruz on March 30, 2006. Appendix 21 of the petitioner’s written communication of May 23, 2006, received by the IACHR on May 30, 2006. Likewise, Annex 22. Communiqué of the Management Board of the Community on April 10, 2007. Annex of the petitioner’s written communication dated April 19, 2007, received on April 20, 2007.