39 127. Finally, it is important to point out that lack of titling of the land included in plot A1 in benefit of the Community of Triunfo de la Cruz is especially serious given that the other nonadjacent territories titled in its favor are divided and fractioned without a continuous relationship between them. Plot “A1” is a territorial extension adjacent to the other plots of land granted in full ownership to the Community (infra Map Annex), and it would also make it possible for there to be a geographical prolongation between them. In that sense, it is reasonable to infer that said lack of continuity between the different territories granted to them makes the correct use and enjoyment by the members of the Community of Triunfo de la Cruz difficult. Therefore, lack of titling of plot A1 also has a negative impact on the use and enjoyment of the other territories granted in full ownership to the Community. B.3.3. Plot A2 acknowledged in full ownership in 2001 128. The evidence proves that the Community of Triunfo de la Cruz requested in full ownership, among others, the area corresponding to Plot A2 (133 hectares) in the year 1997 (supra para. 70). In 2001, the State granted full ownership over the mentioned Plot (supra para. 70) and delimited it.155 There is no information regarding its demarcation. 129. The Court considers that the time elapsed between the request of full ownership in 1997 and the effective titling by the State in 2001 is not unreasonable, reason for which it considers that the State is not responsible for the violation of its obligation to title and delimit the Plot of land referred to as A2 (infra Map Annex), and it cannot issue judgment regarding the alleged lack of demarcation due to lack of sufficient information elements. B.3.4. Plots A3 and A4, acknowledged in full ownership in 2001 130. In what refers to areas A3 and A4, of approximately 33 hectares and 45 hectares, respectively, the Court observes that their full ownership was granted without there being a formal request from the Community. Therefore, it shall not issue judgment regarding the obligation to title those lands. Regarding the obligation to delimit, it has been proven that they were delimited in 2001.156 There is no information on their demarcation. The Court considers that the State is not responsible for the violation of its obligation to title, demarcate, and delimit the Plots of land A3 and A4 (infra Map Annex). B.3.5. Requests of full ownership over sea and land 131. The Court recalls that the representatives and the Commission requested that the Court acknowledge part of the sea and beach as traditional territory of the Community of Triunfo de la Cruz. The State argued that the domestic legislation states that seas and beaches are public property, and it is impossible to issue a title of domain for its exclusive use and possession, given they cannot be the object of appropriation, even though the legislation acknowledges the right of the Garífuna communities to access them. 132. This Court verified that, in this case, the culture and economy of the Garífuna peoples, including the Garífuna Community of Triunfo de la Cruz, are made up, among others, by traditional fishing and the hunting of small sea animals, such as turtles and manatees. In this sense, the beach and the ocean are part of the identity of the Garífuna ethnicity, because they have an essential value for their subsistence, and they are also related to their history and religion. In this sense, it can be seen in the evidence that “due to the Garífuna history, 155 Cfr. National Agrarian Institute, Memorandum of July 5, 2001 (evidence file, folios 1938 to 1941). 156 Cfr. National Agrarian Institute, Memorandum of July 5, 2001 (evidence file, folios 1938 to 1941).