59 contrary, it received information pointing to the persistence of numerous conflicts with third parties related 294 to land tenure and access. 228. Without denying that fact or the right of the Garífuna communities to their ancestral property, the State of Honduras maintained before the IACHR that “effective implementation of those rights presupposes a process requiring […] the deployment of financial resources that the State has not 295 had in order to effectively implement the right which the Honduran State does not dispute.” The Commission takes note of this statement by Honduras, but stresses that States may not use domestic circumstances to justify their failure to comply with their international obligations. The IACHR likewise recalls that the Inter-American Court has ruled that States have the duty to ensure an accessible and simple procedure [referring to the procedure for processing the indigenous peoples’ land-related claims] and to provide competent authorities with the technical and material conditions necessary to respond timely to the requests filed in the framework of said 296 procedure. 229. The State also argued that it cannot disregard the rights of non-indigenous occupants who have “legal documents attesting to their ownership,” such as notarized deeds or full ownership papers. The IACHR concurs with the State to the extent that, as the Court has said, both “the private property of individuals” and the “community property of the members of the indigenous communities” are supported by the American Convention. However, as established in the jurisprudence of the interAmerican system, when these rights conflict, the problem must be resolved in accordance with the 297 principles governing restrictions on human rights. 230. In this regard, the IACHR emphasizes that, as the Court has pointed out, it is necessary to take into account that “the members of indigenous peoples who have unwillingly lost possession of their lands, when those lands have been lawfully transferred to innocent third parties, are entitled to 298 restitution thereof or to obtain other lands of equal extension and quality.” Priority has to be given, first and foremost to the indigenous and tribal peoples’ recovery of their ancestral lands. In addition, consideration must be given to the fact that indigenous and tribal peoples have a right to a guarantee that 299 their ownership of the territory may not, in principle, be overridden by the property rights of third parties, and that they, on the contrary, have the right to live freely in their ancestral territories. As the Court says: Indigenous groups, by the fact of their very existence, have the right to live freely in their own territory; the close ties of indigenous people with the land must be recognized and understood as the fundamental basis of their cultures, their spiritual life, their integrity, and their economic survival. For indigenous communities, relations to the land are not merely a matter of possession and 294 Likewise, in the concluding observations on Honduras in 2006, the Human Rights Committee stated that: “[…The State party should guarantee members of indigenous communities the full exercise of the right to enjoy their own culture. It should take the necessary steps to resolve the problems related to ancestral indigenous lands”. United Nations, Human Rights Committee. Considerations of Reports Submitted By States Parties Under Article 40 of the Covenant. Concluding Observations. CCPR/C/HND/CO/1, December 13, 2006, paragraph 19. 295 IACHR, Hearing dated October 18, 2005 on “Petition 906/03 - Garífuna Community of Triunfo de la Cruz, Honduras”, 123rd period of sessions. 296 I/A Court H.R. Case of the Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of March 29, 2006. Series C No. 146, paragraph 109. Likewise, the IACHR has pointed out that States are obliged to ensure the availability of the funds and resources needed to comply with their constitutional and international obligations vis-à-vis the territorial rights of indigenous and tribal peoples. IACHR, Third Report on the Situation of Human Rights in Paraguay. Doc. OEA/Ser./L/VII.110, Doc. 52, March 9, 2001, paragraph 50 – Recommendation 2. 297 I/A Court H.R, Case of the Xákmok Kásek Indigenous Community v. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 24, 2010 Series C No. 214, paragraph 143. 298 I/A Court H.R. Case of the Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of March 29, 2006. Series C No. 146, paragraph 128. 299 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 115.