72 of Triunfo de la Cruz. Regarding this Community, the Court reiterates its case law that states that it cannot decide if the right to traditional property of the members of an indigenous or tribal Community are over the right to private property of third parties or vice versa, since the Court is not a domestic court that can solve controversies between individuals. That task corresponds exclusively to domestic jurisdiction. 282. Finally, taking into consideration that there is evidence within the facts of the case of a lack of clarity at the Property Registry of Honduras that could be allowing the overlapping of title deeds in the areas in question in this case, the Court considers it appropriate to order the State to create the mechanisms necessary to avoid similar facts from generating future violations to the right to property in rural areas such as the ones analyzed in this case. D.2.2 Other measures requested 283. The Commission requested, in its final written observations 254 that the Court order, among others: (i) acknowledgement of the totality of the territory the Community has historically used and occupied, (ii) guarantee that both the title deed previously granted and the one to be granted include full guarantees to ensure they will not be alienated, sold, or titled without a prior, free, and informed consultation, (iii) issuance of the measures necessary to respond to the Community’s demands of restitution and reparation due to the granting of lands in concession for tourism projects, the granting of title deeds to non-indigenous third parties, and the expansion of the urban area, iv) immediate adoption, in consultation with the Community, of the measures necessary to respond to the situation of conflict present in the area, and v) allocation, without delay, of the budget necessary to make sure the lands and territories are of exclusive indigenous use and occupation. 284. The representatives, in their brief of pleadings and motions, requested the Court to order the State to “[l]egally acknowledge the [traditional] territorial possession of each of the Garífuna communities,” and “provide the area claimed by the Community […] with basic utilities, including drinkable water and sanitary infrastructure, a health center, a school, [and] a community radio station.” Additionally, in their final written arguments, they requested that the Court order the “acknowledgment of the marine territory and beaches since their use and possession are part of the cosmovision of the Garífuna people” and the “suspension of laws and programs that are about to be approved by the National Congress affecting indigenous peoples and failing to acknowledge the CPLI.” 285. The Court verified that the measures stated by the Commission were requested in a time-barred manner, since they were not included in their lodging of the case or in the Report on Merits, and therefore they are dismissed. Regarding the measures requested by the representatives in their brief of pleadings and arguments, this Court considers that it is not appropriate to order them, since they are not related to the facts of the case or the human rights’ violations established in this judgment. In reference to the measures stated by these in their final written arguments, the Court points out that they were requested in a timebarred manner given they were not included in the brief of pleadings and arguments, and therefore they are dismissed. E. Collective compensation through a community development fund 286. The Commission referred in general terms to the State repairing “the consequences of the violation of the rights stated both individually and collectively.” The Commission in its final oral observations made at the public hearing referred, at least in part, to these measures of reparation. 254