42. In addition, it appears that the representatives of the Garifuna Community of Punta Piedra, with a view to securing the clearing of the lands of non-indigenous inhabitants (saneamiento) have for almost two decades been making efforts vis-à-vis the State authorities, raising the central issues of this petition, and achieving the signing of said agreement on December 13, 2001. Based on the information provided by the parties, it appears that to date the commitments assumed by the State are pending implementation. 43. The Commission considers that the State has alleged the failure to exhaust an administrative remedy. In addition, one observes that it has not indicated to this Commission what the suitable judicial remedy would be offered by the domestic legislation, and, accordingly, the remedy that would have to be exhausted. The references to the judicial actions that would to have been brought by the alleged victims, once administrative remedies are exhausted, have been formulated in generic terms. 44. The IACHR also notes that the State argues that the conflict between the Garifuna Community of Punta Piedra and the members of the community of Río Miel “was resolved through the signing of an agreement on December 13, 2001, before an ad hoc Interinstitutional Commission” that includes the INA. With respect to the obligations that stem from said agreement, the State reported that the INA performed the appraisal of the improvements introduced by community members of Río Miel in the territory of the Garifuna community for the purposes of proceeding to clear the lands of non-indigenous people (saneamiento). The Commission observes that the State does not deny its commitment, but alleges that it does not have the economic resources to continue this procedure. 45. In consideration of the foregoing, the IACHR understands that the alleged victims do not want compensation, but call for substantive action on the part of the State to carry out the obligation acquired, first by recognizing their ancestral territory, and, second, by following through on the commitment acquired December 13, 2001 by the el INA, for the third persons who are living in their ancestral territory to be transferred elsewhere. Accordingly a contentious-administrative action or an action for damages so as to obtain compensation from the State is not a suitable remedy in this case. 46. The contentious-administrative action indicated by the State is not a suitable remedy in the face of these claims, given that the State already recognizes and has undertaken to protect the rights in question, such that they do not require a determination of their rights in this regard. Nor would an action for damages be suitable, given that the main claim is for the State to adopt measures within its competence to relocate third persons. 47. In consideration of the foregoing, the IACHR understands that the alleged victims requested the assistance of the State to protect their territory, but considers that they did not have adequate mechanisms for demanding from the State the territorial protection requested. In summary, the IACHR understands that Honduras did not make available to the alleged victims a remedy that would make it possible to protect the right alleged to have been violated, which in the terms of Article 46(2)(a) of the American Convention, constitutes one of the grounds for applying the exception to the rule of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies. 48. Finally, it should be noted that citing the exceptions to the rule of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies provided for at Article 46(2) of the Convention is closely related to the establishment of possible violations of rights enshrined therein, such as the rights to a fair trial and judicial protection. Nonetheless, Article 46(2), by its nature and purpose, is an autonomous provision, in contrast to the substantive provisions of the Convention. Therefore, a determination as to whether the exceptions to the rules of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies provided for therein are applicable in the case at hand must be made prior to and independently of the analysis of the merits, since the standard by which to assess this requirement is different from the one needed to establish a violation of Articles 8 or 25 of the Convention. It should be noted that the causes and effects that have prevented the exhaustion of domestic remedies in the instant case will be considered, to the extent that they are 7