38 obligation to title, demarcate, and delimit, it exists as of the moment in which Convention 169 of the ILO came into force on March 28, 1996, having been ratified by Honduras in the year 1995. 123. Below, the Court will analyze the State’s obligations regarding each of the following territories, which refer to the facts of the case: a) Land given in a communal manner in 1950 and in full ownership in 1993; b) Plot A1 and land given in guarantee of occupation in the year 1979; c) Plot A2, acknowledged in full ownership in 2001: d) Plots A3 and A4, acknowledged in full ownership in 2001, and e) Seas and beaches. B.3.1. Land given in a communal manner in 1950 and in full ownership in 1993 124. In this case it has been proven that in 1993, one year after the emerging of the domestic obligation to title (supra para. 119), the INA titled in favor of the Community of Triunfo de la Cruz the approximately 380 hectares of territory that had been granted to it as communal land in the year 1950 (supra para. 59). Therefore, the Court considers that the State did not violate its obligation to title said territory. 125. With regard to the demarcation and delimitation of that territory, the Court verified that it was not until the year 2000, 18 years after the corresponding domestic obligation appeared, and 6 years after the international obligation emerged, that an Agrarian Commissioner was appointed to carry out “the remeasurement of the communal lands of the Garífuna Community of Triunfo de la Cruz,”152 which was carried out that same year. 153 Therefore, the State is responsible for the violation of Article 21 of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of the same, for having failed to comply with its obligation to delimit and demarcate that area during the mentioned period of time. B.3.2. Plot A1 and land given in Guarantee of Occupation in the year 1979 126. As previously stated, in the year 2001 the INA acknowledged that plot A1 of approximately 408 hectares was traditional territory of the Community of Triunfo de la Cruz (supra para. 115). However, up to this date, it has not been demarcated, delimited, or titled, even though the State was compelled to do so since 1982 and 1992, respectively, at a national level, and since 1996 internationally (supra para. 119). Therefore, the State is responsible for the violation of Article 21 of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of the same, for having failed to comply with its obligation to title, delimit, and demarcate that area. Similarly, it cannot be concluded from the evidence received that the INA assessed, in the case of a possible real impossibility to grant those titles, and pursuant to that established by Convention 169 of the ILO in its Article 16,154 the need to grant alternative lands or compensations for the traditional territory that was not being allocated to the Community. With regard to the land given in guarantee of occupation in the year 1979, the Court observes it is within plot A1 (infra Map Annex), reason for which the same conclusion is reached for that area. Document from the Agrarian Commissioner addressed to the regional agrarian office of La Ceiba of July 3, 2000 (evidence file, folio 761). 152 Cfr. Signature pages of the people present at “the location of two expansion sites of the Garífuna Community of Triunfo de la Cruz,” “the location of three spots of the Common Lands of the Garífuna Community of Triunfo de la Cruz,” and “the inspection of boundary markers and boundaries” (evidence file, folios 801 to 806). 153 Article 16 of Convention 169 of the ILO states: “3. Whenever possible, these peoples shall have the right to return to their traditional lands, as soon as the grounds for relocation cease to exist. 4. When such return is not possible, as determined by agreement or, in the absence of such agreement, through appropriate procedures, these peoples shall be provided in all possible cases with lands of quality and legal status at least equal to that of the lands previously occupied by them, suitable to provide for their present needs and future development. Where the peoples concerned express a preference for compensation in money or in kind, they shall be so compensated under appropriate guarantees.” 154