64 239. It catches the Court’s attention that in that same document the INA specified that plot A1 (infra Map Annex) corresponds to the traditional territory of the Community of Triunfo de la Cruz. However, it did not grant this fact any specific legal consequence. Likewise, it cannot be concluded from the evidence that the INA assessed, in the case of an eventual actual impossibility to grant those titles, pursuant to that established in Convention 169 of the ILO, the eventual need to grant alternative lands or compensations for the traditional territory that was not being allocated to the Community. 240. Therefore, this Court considers that the State is responsible for the violation of Article 8(1) of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of that same instrument, in detriment of the Community of Triunfo de la Cruz and its members, due to the resolution of the request for full ownership filed on August 28, 1997, which did not consider the traditional nature of one of the plots of land referred to in it. B.2. The alleged lack of effectiveness of the judicial and administrative actions regarding the sales and allocations of traditional lands to third parties 241. The Court considers as proven that part of the traditional lands of the Community of Triunfo de la Cruz had been the object of sales and allocations promoted by state authorities to third parties and companies (supra para. 139). 242. Regarding the arguments on the judicial and administrative actions concerning the sales and allocation of traditional lands to third parties, the Court verifies that: a) as a result of the transfer to the Employees and Workers’ Union of the Municipality of Tela of 22 blocks located in the territory claimed by the Community, several judicial and administrative proceedings were presented (supra paras. 80 to 83); b) actions were filed before the Prosecutor’s Office of Ethnic Matters because of the establishment of the company IDETRIS in the Barra del Río Plátano (supra para. 75), and c) a procedure before the INA between the community and the private company MACERICA regarding the territories located in the Barra del Río Plátano is still pending (supra para. 67). 243. Concerning the actions related to the 22 blocks allocated to the Workers’ Union of the municipality of Tela, there is evidence that on September 17, 1994 CODETT filed a criminal action before the Public Prosecutor’s Office for Ethnic Matters, which determined the case would be closed given it was not a criminal offense (supra para. 75), and that on February 4, 1998 the Community filed a complaint for abuse of authority before the Office of Criminal Investigation stating that the Municipality of Tela had introduced machinery into the area without the Community’s consent (supra para. 80). The Court does not have additional information regarding this claim, which was filed approximately 17 years ago. 244. Likewise, there is evidence that in September 1994, CODETT filed a claim before the Public Prosecutor’s Office of Ethnic Matters regarding the sales executed by the municipality of Tela to the company IDETRISA of part of the territory granted in guarantee of occupation in 1979, which was resolved with the final acquittal of the employees and former employees of the Municipal Mayor’s Office of Tela on November 26, 1998 (supra para. 75). 245. Regarding the different criminal proceedings initiated, the Court pointed out that evidentiary elements allowing the Court to infer that the acquittals and lack of determination of those responsible occurred due to fraud in the proceedings or any other violation of the judicial guarantees included in the Convention were not presented. On the contrary, the representatives and the Commission only argued that these procedures did not result in convictions of the alleged responsible parties for the facts without providing any other type of arguments. Thus, the Court lacks the elements to carry out an analysis on the conformity or not of those proceedings with that established in Article 8(1) of the American Convention.