51 Law, which would allow “Communities themselves to end the […] communal regimen” and that “the State [would] use [a] positive legal norm that would normally benefit the peoples, […] and it [would] interpret it and apply it in a manner such that it [would] affect the peoples.” Finally, the representatives indicated that “[a]s a policy of the eight administrations that have been in office in Honduras after the ratification of Convention [169 of the ILO], they have all avoided the matter of the enforcement of the right to consultation [and] prior, free, and informed consent.” 185. On the other hand, the State in general terms referred to the fact that the Constitution “establishes several principles under which it protects and guarantees the protection of the human rights of indigenous peoples, their lands and natural resources” and that “these rights were reaffirmed […] through ratification of Convention 169 of the ILO.” It added that the State “through the [INA], executing entity of the agrarian policy, carries out actions oriented toward the recognition of [traditional] lands of the indigenous and Afro-Honduran communities.”196 Likewise, it indicated that the “INA, upon executing its measure through a technical commission [defines] the boundaries of the area to title to each Community by preparing a map [and] the delimitation of the boundaries is done once the title is granted prior request of the interested parties by providing the labor and materials necessary. The institution forwards it again to the agrarian commission.” Regarding the legislative measures adopted by the State, it referred, among others, to the creation of the Secretary of State’s Offices of Indigenous and Afro-Honduran Peoples and reforms to the Criminal Code to “add as an aggravating circumstance that the crime be committed with hate or contempt because of their belonging to indigenous and afro-descendent peoples.”197 186. Finally, with regard to the right to prior consultation, the State indicated that “despite the ratification […] of Convention 169 of the ILO, as well as the signing of the United Nations’ Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People, the State did not include in its domestic regulation an adaptation as per the mentioned treaties; [since] formally the declaration is not a binding document for the States because since it is not an International Treaty it has the category of Declaration, which grants it an important political, ethical, and moral value for all states members of the United Nations, but it does not create direct legal obligations.” B. Considerations of the Court 187. The Court recalls that Article 2 of the Convention obliges States Parties to adopt, in accordance with their constitutional processes and the provisions of the Convention, such legislative or other measures as may be necessary to give effect to those rights and freedoms and other rights of those peoples” and that several of its provisions “[would] threaten the obligations taken on by the State in different international instruments.” The representatives indicated that “on December 15th of the year 2008, once again the Garífuna communities, represented by the OFRANEH […] filed a constitutional motion against the regulation of the Law on Property, which was declared inadmissible by the Constitutional Court on February 8, 2011, basically substantiating its judgment on civil court regulations.” This constitutional motion as well as the decision issued by the Constitutional Court in this regard have not been included in the case file. The State indicated that the titling process for the Communities’ lands consists of three stages, without referring to the relevant regulations. Namely, titling (including recording before the registry), the “expansion” that refers to “an extension of the national or communal areas in parts that are not occupied, which are State property and that have been the habitat of Garífuna Communities,” and “restructuring” that refers to a “process through which the value of the land is paid for and improvements are introduced by the occupants.” 196 Additionally, the State referred to other regulations, for example regarding non-discrimination, and several training sessions carried out and addressed to several public officials. 197