75 sanctions play an important role in creating the type of institutional culture and competence 372 required to deal with the factors that explain certain structural contexts of violence. 291. In light of the above, the IACHR observes that the prolonged and repetitive nature of the acts of violence, persecution, and illegal sale of land, indicate that the State’s failure to respond to the complaints filed meant that the attempt of the Community and its members to find protection and see justice done was in vain. In the IACHR’s opinion, in practice, the legal system was not an effective option for the protection of the indigenous territory. That has had multiple consequences for the members and leaders of the Garífuna Community of Triunfo de la Cruz, as indicated throughout this report. 292. The IACHR considers, based on the information at its disposal, that the failure of the State to respond to the remedies attempted, left the alleged victims unprotected and has led to the Community of Triunfo de la Cruz and its members being left in a situation of continuous uncertainty, anxiety, and fear. 293. In light of the above, the Commission concludes that the Honduran State has not guaranteed adequate and effective remedy for responding to claims on ancestral territory and claims to land titled in favor of the Garífuna Community of Triunfo de la Cruz, nor has it carried out the investigations relating to the complaints lodged by the Community and its members for damage to property and threats, attacks, harassment, and persecution. This has prevented them from being heard in proceedings with due guarantees, so that the Commission concludes that the State of Honduras violated Articles 25 and 8 of the American Convention. VI. CONCLUSIONS 294. By virtue of the considerations of fact and law established in this report, the InterAmerican Commission on Human Rights concludes that: 1. The State of Honduras violated the right to property established in Article 21 of the American Convention on Human Rights, in conjunction with Articles 1.1 and 2 thereof, to the detriment of the Garífuna Community of Triunfo de la Cruz and its members, for not having provided effective access to a collective property title to its ancestral territory; and for having refrained from delimiting, demarcating, and protecting it effectively. 2. The State of Honduras violated Article 21 of the American Convention, in conjunction with Article 1.1 thereof to the detriment of the Garífuna Community of Triunfo de la Cruz and its members by having taken decisions regarding measures that affected its territory, without satisfying the requirements established under inter-American law, such as conducting expropriation proceedings; not threatening the subsistence of indigenous communities; conducting prior, free, and informed consultations, as well as social and environmental impact assessments; and guaranteeing the participation of the indigenous in the benefits resulting from the concessions granted. 3. The State of Honduras violated Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention in connection with Articles 1.1 and 2 thereof, to the detriment of the Garífuna Community of Triunfo de la Cruz and its members, due to failure to provide an appropriate and effective procedure for the recognition, titling, demarcation, and delimitation of the territory claimed by the alleged victims, that would make it possible to guarantee peaceable possession and recovery of its ancestral land. 4. The State of Honduras violated Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention in connection with Articles 1.1 and 2 thereof, to the detriment of the Garífuna Community of Triunfo de la Cruz and its members due to failure to conduct a serious, effective and prompt investigation intended to ascertain the truth and determine responsibilities with respect to the complaints filed by Community members and leaders. 372 I/A Court H.R. Case of Manuel Cepeda Vargas v. Colombia. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of May 26, 2010. paragraph 153.