20 83. Based on the foregoing paragraphs, the IACHR notes that the competent State authorities did not guarantee through clearing of title, the peaceable possession of the ancestral territories of the Community vis-à-vis the occupation thereof by third parties, either at the time of granting fee simple 81 title of ownership to the Punta Piedra Community, or subsequently. This is evident, particularly, in the agreement of commitment entered into on December 6, 1999 with different State authorities –including the INA- in which it is asserted that the property title in fee simple to 1,513 hectares was granted “without having completed the respective clearing of title, that is to say, making payment to the occupiers of the 82 community of Rio Miel for improvements.” Likewise, in a report prepared by INA officials, it is stated that “within the area referenced above [referring to the territory historically occupied by the Garifuna communities] it must be asserted that under the last administrations, titles of expansion were issued without considering the existing Garifuna occupation; inasmuch as the correct thing to do in that case was to execute prior clearing of title or exclude those areas. This has given rise to conflicts between the 83 Garifuna residents and ladinos.” V. ANALYSIS OF LAW A. Preliminary Issues 84. The Garifuna people, the product of cultural syncretism between indigenous and African peoples, has asserted its rights in Honduras as an Indigenous people. As has been established, the Garifuna people has preserved its own cultural forms, organization and social and cultural institutions, way of life, worldview, practices, customs, ceremonial observances, language, dress and a special relationship with the land. These elements make the Garifuna a distinct culture and ethnic group, whose members share with each other social, cultural and economic characteristics not found in other segments of Honduran society, particularly the special relationship to the lands they have traditionally occupied, as well as the collective concept of ancestral property. The indigenous status of the Garifuna people has not been disputed by the Honduran State in the instant case. 85. The bodies of the Inter-American human rights system have held, on the basis of Article 1.1 of the convention, that the members of indigenous and tribal peoples require certain special measures in order to ensure full exercise of their rights, especially respect for the enjoyment of their property rights, 84 in order to ensure their physical and cultural survival. Accordingly, the Commission shall analyze the case of the Garifuna Community of Punta Piedra by bearing in mind the legal precedents of the InterAmerican system with respect to the rights of indigenous peoples, in accordance with their distinct social, cultural and economic characteristics, including the special relationship they have with their ancestral territories. B. Article 21 of the Convention, in connection with Articles 1.1 and 2 thereof 1. Territorial Rights of Indigenous Peoples in the Inter-American Human Rights System 81 Annex 2. Map of “geographic location of the land of the Garifuna Community of Punta Piedra” drawn by the INA on July 12, 2007. Annexes to the submission introduced by the State on July 19, 2007, during the working meeting of the 128 th Regular Period of Sessions. 82 Annex 7. Agreement of commitment of Decemeber 13, 2001. Annex to the initial petition dated October 27, 2003, received by the IACHR on October 29, 2003. 83 Annex 30. Communication addressed to the Minister Director of the INA by the assessor of the Exectuvie Office of the INA dated June 23, 2010. Annex to the submission of the petitioners observations on the merits dated September 8, 2010, received by the IACHR on September 27, 2010.. 84 IA Court of HR, Case of the Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community. Judgment August 31, 2001. Series C No. 79, pars. 148-149, and 151; Case of the Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment March 29, 2006. Series C No. 146, pars. 118-121 and 131; and Case of the Yakye Axa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment June 17, 2005. Series C No. 125, pars. 124, 131, 135-137, and 154.