35. Article 46(1) of the American Convention establishes that in order for a petition submitted to the Inter-American Commission to be admissible pursuant to Article 44 of the Convention, one must have pursued and exhausted domestic remedies, in keeping with generally recognized principles of international law. The purpose of this requirement is to allow national authorities to examine alleged violations of a protected right, and, if appropriate, to resolve them before their consideration by an international authority. 36. Article 46(2) of the Convention provides that the requirement of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies does not apply when: (a) the domestic legislation of the state concerned does not afford due process of law for the protection of the right or rights that have allegedly been violated; (b) the party alleging violation of his rights has been denied access to the remedies under domestic law or has been prevented from exhausting them; and (c) there has been unwarranted delay in rendering a final judgment under the aforementioned remedies. 37. In the instant case, the State asks that the petition be declared inadmissible for failure to exhaust domestic remedies. It argues that the alleged victims should have sought payment of compensation through the administrative mechanisms established by the domestic legislation to guarantee the rights of private persons vis-à-vis the administration, and if that effort were not fruitful, only then could they have resorted to judicial action. In this respect, it notes that for the purposes of filing the corresponding judicial action, one must first have exhausted the administrative claim established in the Law on Administrative Procedures. It adds that the signing of the agreement on December 13, 2001, should not be understood as exhaustion of remedies because that agreement is in the nature of an out-of-court settlement. 38. The petitioner argues, on the other hand, that the signing of the agreement executed with the INA on December 13, 2001, presupposes the exhaustion of domestic remedies. It argues that the breach of obligations assumed by government agencies in agreements such as that mentioned is not susceptible to being alleged before the courts of justice. 39. With respect to the requirement of exhaustion of domestic remedies, the Commission observes that the facts alleged in the instant case are related to the effective protection of the right to collective property of a Garifuna community. In addition, it observes that the alleged victims are members of a Garifuna community that is culturally differentiated, with its own organization and authorities, and oral tradition, which for decades has been taking initiatives vis-à-vis the authorities of the State to secure recognition of their ancestral territory, first, and second, to be allowed the use and enjoyment of their rights. 40. In the instant case, there is no dispute with respect to the right to property of the Garifuna Community of Punta Piedra. The issue raised refers to the nature and scope of the obligation of the Honduran State to offer effective protection to that community‘s right to collective property. In this respect, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (hereinafter the “Court” or the “Inter-American Court”) has determined that the “protection of property under Article 21 of the Convention … places upon States a positive obligation to adopt special measures that guarantee members of indigenous and tribal peoples the full and equal exercise of their right to the territories they have traditionally used and occupied.” 13 41. Based on the analysis of the information and documents provided by the parties, it appears that the State granted the Community of Punta Piedra a community title (título ejidal) of use and enjoyment over their territory in 1922. In addition, it appears that the State, through the National Agrarian Institute, granted Property Title of Full Ownership to the Community in 1993 and 1999 for 800.64 hectares and 1,513.54 hectares, respectively. In addition, it appears that part of the territory of the Garifuna Community of Punta Piedra has been occupied by a peasant farmer community since approximately 1992, a situation that the State, through the INA, undertook to resolve, first in view of the nature of the property title of full ownership conveyed to the Garifuna Community in 1999 and, second, by means of the commitment acquired in the agreement signed on December 13, 2001, by the communities in conflict and the INA. 13 I/A Court H.R., Case of the Saramaka People v. Suriname. Judgment of November 28, 2007. Series C No. 172, para. 91 6