25 102. In the instant case, it is necessary to note that because the bodies of the Inter-American system have consistently held that indigenous territorial ownership is a form of property that is not based on official recognition of the State, rather on traditional use and ownership of lands and resources; the 105 territories of indigenous and tribal peoples “are theirs by right of their ancestral use and occupancy.” The right to communal property is also based on indigenous legal cultures, and on their ancestral systems of property, regardless of recognition by the State; the source of the property rights of indigenous and tribal peoples is found, therefore, in the customary system of land tenure that has traditionally existed 106 among the communities. Accordingly, the Court has held that “traditional possession of their lands by 107 indigenous people has equivalent effects to those of a state-granted full property title.” 103. In this context, the fact that the Punta Piedra Community did not have at the time of the encroachment of Rio Miel a formally recognized property title by the authorities, does not relieve the Honduran State of international responsibility, inasmuch as based on the legal precedents of the system, guarantees of protection of the right to property under Inter-American human rights instruments can be made fully effective by the indigenous peoples with respect to territories that are theirs but that are not yet 108 titled formally, demarcated or delimited by the State. 104. The State alleged that it cannot disregard the rights of the occupants of Rio Miel who have been holding possession for decades and those of other occupants who hold “legal ownership protected by duly recorded deeds.” The IACHR concurs with the State to the extent that, as has been expressed by the Court, both “private property of private individuals” as well as “community property of the members of indigenous communities” are protected by the American Convention. Nonetheless, as has been established in the case law of the Inter-American system, when these rights are at odds with each other, the problem must be resolved in accordance with the principles that govern limits on human 109 rights. 105. In this same vein, in view of the recognized fact of the occupancy by third parties of areas of the ancestral territory belonging to the Punta Piedra Community, as well as the deterioration of the territory as a result of burning of forests, the State did take steps to clear title of the territory and pay the occupants for the improvements they made and move them elsewhere. However, as of the date of this Report, the State has not complied with said actions. …continuation that hunting, fishing and gathering are an essential element of indigenous culture [IA Court of HR. Case of the Yakye Axa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay. Merits, Reparation and Costs. Judgment June 17, 2005. Series C No. 125, par. 140]. This complex notion of the right to indigenous property is also reflected in the United Nations Declaration, which establishes that “indigenous peoples have the right to own, use, develop and control the lands, territories and resources that they possess by reason of traditional ownerhip or other traditional occupation or use, as well as those which they have otherwise acquired” [United Nations Declaration, supra note 1, Article 26.2]. 105 IACHR, Access to Justice and Social Inclusion: The Road toward Strengthening Democracy in Bolivia. Doc. OEA/Ser.L/V/II, Doc. 34, June 28, 2007, par. 231. 106 See inter alia, IA Court of HR. Case of the Saramaka People v. Suriname. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment November 28, 2007. Series C No. 172, par. 96; IACHR, Arguments before the Inter-American Court of Human Rights en the case of Awas Tingni v. Nicaragua. Reference in: IA Court of HR. Case of the Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community v. Nicaragua. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment August 31, 2001. Series C No. 79, par. 140(a); IACHR, Report No. 40/04, Case 12.053, Mayan Indigenous Communities of the District of Toledo (Belize), October 12, 2004, par. 115. 107 IA Court of HR. Case of the Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community v. Nicaragua. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment August 31, 2001. Series C No. 79, par. 151; 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. 128. IA Court of HR. Case of the Xákmok Kásek Indigenous Community v. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment August 24, 2010 Series C No. 214, par. 109. 108 IACHR, Application filed before the IA Court of HR in the case of the Kichwa de Sarayaku People and its Members v. Ecuador, April 26, 2010, par 125. IACHR, Report No. 40/04, Case 12.053, Mayan Indigenous Communities of the District of Toledo (Belize), October 12, 2004, pars. 142 and 153. 109 IA Court of HR. Case of the Xákmok Kásek Indigenous Community v. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment August 24, 2010 Series C No. 214, par. 143.