71 customary law, values, and customs.” Additionally, it referred to the State “[a]dopt[ing] an effective and simple remedy that protects the right of indigenous people of Honduras to reclaim and access their traditional territories and to protect those territories against actions of the State or third parties that violate their right to property.” Additionally, it requested the State adopt “with the participation of the indigenous peoples, the legislative or any other measures, necessary to make effective the right to a prior, free, informed consultation carried out in good faith, pursuant to the standards of international human rights.” 276. The representatives requested that the Court order the State to adopt “the legislative, administrative, and any other measure necessary to create a judicial mechanism to make the right of indigenous [and tribal] peoples […]to property over their [traditional] habitat or [traditional] territory effective, according to their customary law, values, uses, and customs” and, more specifically, “create an effective and efficient remedy that will allow indigenous and tribal peoples of Honduras to access their [traditional] habitat according to the rights acknowledged in the Inter-American human rights regulations.”253 Additionally, they requested “to adopt in their domestic legislation […] the legislative, administrative, or any other measure necessary to make the right to a prior, free, and informed consultation effective,” more specifically, the “[a]pproval of a [l]aw reached by consensus for the [c]onsultation of the country’s indigenous people in accordance with Convention 169 [of the ILO] and UNDRIP, and that the State guarantee good faith in the application of that law.” Furthermore, they requested the “[r]epeal of the protected areas and national parks that cover Garífuna territories and that were created without consultation” and the [a]nnulment of all titles issued to third parties over the community title deeds [in all Garífuna communities].” Finally, they requested it order “actions at the highest level in legislative matters reforming the Constitution of the Republic, granting the pluriculturalism, multiculturalism and sociological multinationality of the peoples a constitutional rank.” 277. The State did not refer specifically to this measure of reparation. 278. In this case, the Court declared the violation of Article 2, in relation to Articles 21 and 1(1) of the Convention due to the absence of a practice or regulation in the corresponding domestic legal system regarding the right to a prior, free, and informed consultation with indigenous and tribal peoples, which resulted in violations in this specific case prior to the adoption of the law on property in the year 2004 (supra para. 199). 279. However, the Court stated it would not issue a ruling regarding the period after the year 2004 because there is no evidence that the Law on Property of 2004 was applied to the Community and its members (supra párr. 200), and therefore the Court will not refer to the measure of reparation requested by the representatives. 280. On the other hand, regarding the representatives’ request for the “[r]epeal of the protected areas and national parks that cover the Garífuna territories, which were created without consultation,” this Court orders the State to guarantee the Community’s free access, use, and enjoyment of its collective property in the parts that overlap with an area of the Punta Izopo National Park. 281. Regarding the other measures of reparation requested, in what refers to the adjustment of the domestic legislation, this Court considers it shall not order them since they are not related to the human rights’ violations determined in this judgment. In reference to the measure requested for the “[a]nnulment of all title deeds issued to third parties over community title deeds [in all the Garífuna communities],” the Court verifies that this is not related to the facts of the case in what refers to other Garífuna communities different to that In this sense, they added that “[i]t is urgent that a law that will effectively protect indigenous territorial property in its broadest sense be decreed. The necessary institutions must be created, and the existing ones must be strengthened.” 253