55 210. The IACHR notes that, given the nonexistence of specific legislation regarding the ancestral property of indigenous peoples in Honduran law – with the exception of the recent specific provisions referred to above –, the Community has all along had to avail itself of the mainly agrarian laws available to protect its rights to its ancestral lands, by filing applications with the National Agrarian Institute. Indeed, as the proven facts show, that legislation has consisted of the 1924 Agrarian Law, the 1962 Agrarian Reform Law, the 1974 Agrarian Reform Law, and the 1992 Modernization and Development of the Agrarian Sector Law. 211. The IACHR notes that, as a result of those efforts, the Community managed to achieve an ejido title to part of its ancestral territory in 1950, and a guarantee of occupancy title for another area in 1979, neither of which actually recognized its property right; instead, they awarded limited rights to the use and enjoyment of the land. On this, the IACHR recalls that, as the Inter-American Court has explained, there must be full recognition of the property right of indigenous peoples and there must be legal certainty as to its stability; for that reason the provisions of the American Convention are not satisfied when it is substituted by other legal constructs that grant limited rights and are revocable, such 280 as those mentioned above. 212. The IACHR notes that it was only recently, in 1993 and 2001, under the and Development of the Agrarian Sector Law of 1992, that the State granted the Community two full ownership titles to a total of 615 hectares and 28.71 centiares, whereas the territory claimed by the Community as one occupied since ancestral times covers an area of approximately 2,840 hectares, as considered proven in the foregoing paragraphs. Thus, the IACHR notes that, as of the date of this report, almost 66 years have elapsed since the Community filed its first application, a period of time that the IACHR also considers to be excessive, not having even resulted in recognition of the whole of the ancestral territory. 213. In this regard, the State pointed out that if the Community considered it had more territory, it should file the corresponding application with the INA, the State body that would process its request. Nevertheless, the IACHR observes from the evidence at its disposal that, contrary to the State’s assertion, the Community lodging the petition applied to that body on more than one occasion requesting titling of the historically occupied territory. In particular, in the proceedings with the INA regarding the application filed on July 8, 1998, the Community identified its ancestral territory during field inspections carried out by officials from the Institute. Likewise, in the application for titling filed on January 22, 2001, the Community described and identified its ancestral territory. 214. From the information at its disposal, the IACHR notes that the part of the territory that was not recognized by the State, generally speaking, coincides with the area used by the Community to conduct its traditional subsistence activities, such as hunting, fishing, and agriculture. However, from the first application for titling known to the Commission, that filed in 1946, the Community asked for recognition “of both the area of the population and its surroundings,” but only the area occupied by dwellings was titled. It also notes that, subsequently, the Community repetitively filed applications to achieve legal recognition of its functional habitat, such as the request for adjudication of 1969, the request that gave rise to the granting of an occupancy guarantee in 1979, the applications submitted to the INA in 1997, 1998, and 2001. 215. In the IACHR’s opinion, this has to do with application of agrarian legislation, which is based on productive use and exploitation of the land, to address the Community’s territorial claim. Foreign to this legislation, are the Community’s specific ties to and use of the land resulting from its culture, habits, customs, and beliefs. Here, the IACHR recalls that, as the Court has pointed out: Members of tribal and indigenous communities have the right to own the natural resources they have traditionally used within their territory for the same reasons that they have a right to own the 280 I/A Court H.R. Case of the Saramaka People v. Suriname. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 28, 2007. Series C No. 172, paragraph 113.