61 304 occupancy.” The right to indigenous communal property is based also on indigenous juridical cultures, and on their ancestral property systems, regardless of State recognition; the origin of the property rights of indigenous and tribal peoples is to be found, therefore, in the customary land tenure system that has 305 traditionally existed among communities. That being so, the Court has asserted that “the traditional possession by the indigenous peoples of their lands has the same effects as a title of full ownership 306 granted by the State.” 236. Along the same lines, the IACHR considers that the fact that the Triunfo de la Cruz Community did not have a title deed officially recognized by the authorities at the time of the expansion in no way exempts the State of Honduras from its international liability, because, as the jurisprudence of the inter-American system has established, the guarantees protecting the right to property under interAmerican human rights instruments may be effectively invoked by the indigenous peoples with respect to the territories that belong to them but have not yet been officially titled, demarcated, or delimited by the 307 State. Indeed, for the IACHR States have a special obligation to protect untitled indigenous territories from any act that could impair or diminish their existence, value, use, or enjoyment of goods, including existing natural resources, because those peoples have communal property rights to land and natural 308 resources based on traditional patents of use and ancestral occupancy. 237. Without prejudice to the above, the IACHR observes that, as shown in the proven facts Section, at the time the INA adopted Resolution No. 055-1989, the Triunfo de la Cruz Community had the ejido title granted in 1950 to 380.82 hectares, in which its occupancy was recognized. Likewise, such possession had been recognized with respect to 126.40 hectares, by virtue of the occupancy guarantee granted by the INA in 1979, pursuant to the Agrarian Reform Law. It also notes that, at that time, the application for a title to the River Plátano area, filed by the Community in 1969 was being processed at the INA. Nevertheless, the same institution approved the expansion to the detriment of the Community’s rights, despite the fact that point 3 of the aforementioned resolution established that it was granted “without prejudice to any property and possession right of natural or juristic persons in the delimited area.” 238. Furthermore, the IACHR observes that point 2 of Resolution No. 055-1989 provided for the exclusion from the urban radius of “land previously granted to beneficiaries of the Agrarian Reform […] until they have been paid for in full.” According to that, at least the 126.40 hectare area granted to the Community as a beneficiary of the Agrarian Reform should have been excluded from the expansion. Alternatively, the total value of the land should have been paid. Nevertheless, from the information at the IACHR’s disposal, this circumstance was not even considered as a way of guaranteeing the Community’s rights. 239. In the IACHR’s opinion, the expansion of the urban core represented total disregard of the legal obligations undertaken by the State and, in particular, of the Community’s well known territorial claims and considerably exacerbated its legal uncertainty. The IACHR has pointed to the establishment of 304 IACHR, Access to Justice and Social Inclusion: The Road Towards Stengthening Democracy In Bolivia. Doc. OEA/Ser/L/V/II.135, Doc. 34, June 28, 2007, paragraph 231. 305 See inter alia, 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 96; IACHR, Pleadings before the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in the case of Awas Tingni v. Nicaragua. Referred to in: I/A Court H.R. Case of the Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community v. Nicaragua. Judgment of August 31, 2001. Series C No. 79. Paragraph 140(a); IACHR, Report No. 40/04, Case 12.053, Maya Indigenous Communities of the Toledo District (Belize), October 12, 2004, paragraph 115. 306 I/A Court H.R., Case of the Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community v. Nicaragua. Judgment of August 31, 2001. Series C No. 79, paragraph 151; 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. 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 109. 307 IACHR, Action filed with the I/A Court H.R in the Case of the Kichwa Indigenous People of Sarayaku v. Ecuador. April 26, 2010, paragraph 125. IACHR, Report No. 40/04, Case 12.053, Maya Indigenous Communities of the Toledo District (Belize), October 12, 2004, paragraphs 142 and 153. 308 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 68.