24 98. In the matter under consideration, the IACHR notes that, despite the existence of constitutional and statutory provisions recognizing the right of the Punta Piedra Community to communal property, and even the recognition of their traditional forms of land tenure, the Community has not been able to use and enjoy their lands peacefully. In the view of the IACHR, this was the result of the failure of State authorities to fulfill their duty as to the territorial rights of the Garifuna Community, mainly the failure to provide effective protection of their territory from occupation and unlawful dispossession by third parties, and to ensure that it [the territory] be exclusively indigenous by means of the respective clearing of title. 99. In fact, as has been established, the principal fact that has impeded the Community’s peaceful possession is the presence and gradual appropriation by non-Garifuna ladinos on their ancestral territory, especially in the area known as Rio Miel. Based on facts considered proven by the IACHR, the competent authorities were aware of the presence of many ladino individuals on indigenous lands. The Community repeatedly requested that their title be cleared, to which the authorities expressly committed, at least through the “Agreement of commitment” of December 13, 2001, and the “Agreement of understanding” of September 28, 2006. Nonetheless, the State failed to prove to the IACHR that it effectively carried out these agreements; rather, on the contrary, information was introduced indicating that this conflict is still going on, nearly twenty years after the first incidents of encroachment. 100. Far from denying this fact or the right of the Punta Piedra Community to obtaining clean title to its ancestral territory, the State of Honduras recognized before the IACHR that the conflicts arose with “the arrival of the first settlers of the community that is known as Rio Miel,” but argued that the area occupied by the Village of Rio Miel where “the Community is unable to exercise the rights of use, enjoyment and possession is negligible.” 101. Under Inter-American human rights instruments, indigenous and tribal peoples have the right to recognition and protection of “their specific versions of use and enjoyment of property, springing 101 from the culture, uses, customs and beliefs of each people.” There is not only one way to use and enjoy protected property; both property and the ways of possession of the territories by the indigenous and tribal peoples may be different from the non-indigenous concept of ownership, but they are protected 102 by the right to property. The unique relationship between the indigenous and their traditional territory “may include traditional use or presence, be it through spiritual or ceremonial ties; settlements or sporadic cultivation; seasonal or nomadic gathering, hunting and fishing; the use of natural resources associated 103 with their customs and any other element characterizing their culture.” Any of these forms is protected 104 by Article 21 of the Convention. 101 IA Court of HR. Case of the Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment March 29, 2006. Series C No. 146, par. 120. 102 IA Court of HR. Case of the Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment March 29, 2006. Series C No. 146, par. 120. 103 IA Court of HR. Case of the Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment March 29, 2006. Series C No. 146, par. 131. 104 See inter alia IACHR, Report No. 75/02, Case 11.140, Mary and Carrie Dann (United States), December 27, 2002, par. 130; IACHR, Report No. 40/04, Case 12.053, Mayan Indigenous Communities of the District of Toledo (Belize), October 12, 2004, par. 151. IA Court of HR. Case of the Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay. Merits, Reparation and Costs. Judgment March 29, 2006. Series C No. 146, par.120. This interpretative approach is backed in wording of other international instruments, which reflect international attitudes toward the role of traditional land tenure systems in modern human rights protection systems; for example, Article 14.1 of Convention 169, and Article 27 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, ratified by Honduras on August 25, 1997. In this regard, the Human Rights Committee has explained that “culture is expressed in many ways, including a particular way of life related to the use of the resources of the earth, especially in the case of indigenous peoples” [Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 23: The Rights of Minorities (Article 27 ICCPR), 08/04/94, Doc. UN CCPR/C/21/Rev. 1/Add.5, par. 7; cited in IACHR, Report No. 75/02, Case 11.140, Mary and Carrie Dann (United States), December 27, 2002, par. 130, footnote No. 97]. Consequently, protection of cultureal rights of an indigneous people may include protection of ways of relating to the territory through traditional activities such as fishing or hunting [Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 23: The Rights of Minorities (Article 27 of the ICCPR), 08/04/94, Doc. UN CCPR/C/21/Rev. 1/Add.5, par 7; cited in IACHR, Report No. 75/02, Case 11.140, Mary and Carrie Dann (United States), December 27, 2002, par. 130, footnote No. 97], to the extent Continues…