57 encroachment upon, and curtailment of the rights to property and effective possession of the territory by 286 indigenous and tribal peoples that the State is obliged to monitor and prevent. 220. In the case at hand, the IACHR observes that, despite the existence of constitutional and legal provisions that recognize the right of the Triunfo de la Cruz Community to communal property, and even recognize its traditional forms of land tenure, the Community has not maintained peaceable occupancy and tenure of the Community’s ancestral lands. In the IACHR’s opinion, that happened because of failure of the State authority to comply with its duties regarding the territorial rights of the Garífuna Community, such as (i) the lack of determination and timely delimitation of titled lands, (ii) the lack of legal certainty in the titles granted, (iii) restrictions on access to areas of the ancestral territory due to the establishment of protected areas, and (iv) failure to effectively protect their territory against occupation and dispossession by third parties and to guarantee that it be exclusively indigenous. 221. As regards the first factor, according to the information at the disposal of the IACHR, proceedings with the INA for the adjudication of lands to the Community did not lead to effective delimitation and demarcation of the areas to which title was granted. Indeed, as we saw in the section on proven facts, in July 2000, at the Community’s own request, a Commission was appointed to “determine and locate the measurement lines for the full ownership title [of 1993].” Here, the IACHR recalls that, as it has previously pointed out, the obligation of the State to recognize and guarantee the indigenous peoples’ exercise of the right to communal property “necessarily requires the State to effectively delimit and demarcate the territory to which the people’s property right extends and to take the appropriate measures 287 to protect the right of the people [concerned] in their territory.” The IACHR considers that delimiting part of the ancestral territory seven years after its titling does not meet that obligation, apart from the fact that the State has not proven to this day that the total ancestral territory of the Community has effectively been delimited and demarcated. 222. As regards the lack of legal certainty of the titles granted, the IACHR notes that the full ownership title of 1993 was granted to the Community “subject to the condition that if the sale or donation of parcels […] is allowed, it will be authorized for tourism projects approved by the Honduran Tourism Institute in favor of descendents of the beneficiary ethnic community.” It also notes that with the expansion of the radius of the Municipality of Tela, in Resolution No. 002 of January 17, 1992, the IHT recommended following, “with respect to land use patents […] the Urban Development Guidelines for the town of Tela […] which envisage exploiting the tourism potential of the area inside the new urban 288 perimeter.” 223. Along these same lines, the 2004 Property Law – the general regulatory framework applicable to the territorial rights of indigenous and afro-Honduran peoples in Honduras – recognizes the communal system with respect to indigenous land and establishes that an end may be put to it “in order to authorize leasing to third parties or contracts of another kind that enable the Community to participate 289 in investments contributing to its development.” 224. The IACHR considers that the inclusion of these kinds of clauses in the communal title, and the application of provisions encouraging tourism in indigenous territories are incompatible with the 286 IACHR, Report on the Situation of Human Rights in Brazil. Doc. OEA/Ser.L/V/II.97, Doc. 29 rev. 1, September 29, 1997, Chapter VI, paragraphs 33, 40. IACHR, Indigenous and Tribal Peoples’ Rights Over Their Ancestral Lands and Natural Resources. Norms and Jurisprudence of the Inter-American Human Rights System. OEA/Ser.L/V/II.Doc.56/09, December 30, 2009, paragraph 114. 287 IACHR, Report No. 40/04, Case 12.053, Maya Indigenous Communities of the Toledo District (Belize), October 12, 2004, paragraph 132. 288 Annex 18. Resolution 002 of the Honduran Tourism Institute, dated January 17, 1992. Annex 8 of the initial petition dated October 27, 2003, received by the IACHR on October 29, 2003. 289 Property Law, Decree 82-2004 of June 29, 2004. Article 100 – It is declared unrecognized that the communal land regime traditionally followed by these peoples includes the inalienable, unseizable, and imprescriptible nature of the land. Nevertheless, the communities themselves may terminate this communal system, authorize leasing to third parties, or authorize contracts of another kind that enable the community to participate in investments contributing to its development.