26 106. Moreover, it must be taken into account that indigenous and tribal peoples have the right 110 to their ownership of territory not being, in principle, trumped by the real property rights of third parties, but rather they are entitled to live freely in their ancestral territories, as has been explained by the Court as follows: Indigenous groups, by the fact of their very existence, have the right to live freely in their own territory; the close ties of indigenous people with the land must be recognized and understood as the fundamental basis of their cultures, their spiritual life, their integrity, and their economic survival. For indigenous communities, relations to the land are not merely a matter of possession and production but a material and spiritual element, which they must fully enjoy, even to preserve their 111 cultural legacy and transmit it to future generations. 107. In this regard, the IACHR notes that the 2004 Law of Property, Chapter III on the process of regularization of real property for indigenous and Afro-Honduran peoples, recognizes certain rights; specifically, Article 93 establishes that: The State, due to the special importance that their relationship with the lands has for cultures and spiritual values, recognizes the right that indigenous and Afro-Honduran peoples have over the lands that they traditionally possess and that the law does not prohibit. 108. However, the Commission notes that the indigenous and tribal peoples were not consulted with respect to the aforementioned law, even though the State of Honduras ratified ILO Convention 169 in 1995 and despite the legal precedents of the Inter-American human rights system on the subject matter. Additionally, it views with concern the provisions of the Law of Property regarding the presence of third parties on communal properties of indigenous and Afro-Honduran peoples. On this point, the law provides that the rights of property and tenure of these peoples shall preempt such titles as 112 may be granted to third parties, who never possessed them; however, third parties, who have property title to lands of these peoples and who have owned and possessed the land, do have the right to continue 113 to possess and exploit them. The law further establishes that a third party, who has received property title over communal lands, which because of its characteristics can be invalidated, shall be compensated for improvements prior to return of the lands to the affected communities; while, third parties on 114 indigenous lands that do not possess any title may negotiate remaining in the community. In the opinion of the IACHR, such provisions render illusory the preferential right of indigenous peoples based on the ancestral possession of their lands and neither do such provisions favor their right to collective property of an exclusively indigenous territory. 109. One of the consequences of the lack of effective protection and clearing of title to the territory historically occupied by the Punta Piedra Community is that it has given rise to a situation of insecurity and violence. The Commission notes that, as the Garifuna Community reported, such harassment and violence caused by the interests of ladinos or non garifuna in the ancestral territory were exacerbated by the discrimination against the Garifuna people because of their ethnic origin. As has been shown, members of the Punta Piedra Community reported to the state authorities acts of harassment and violence perpetrated by private individuals in an effort to unlawfully take their ancestral lands away from them, which clearly shows the situation of conflict and insecurity existing on the ancestral territory, and which impedes the peaceful use and enjoyment thereof. 110 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. 115. 111 Case of the Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community v. Nicaragua. Judgment August 31, 2001. Series C No. 79, par. 149. Also see in: IA Court of HR. Case of the Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community. Judgment March 29, 2006. Series C No. 146, par. 222. 112 Law of Property decree 82-2004 of June 15, 2004, Article 96.. 113 Law of Property decree 82-2004 of June 15, 2004, Article 97. 114 Law of Property decree 82-2004 of June 15, 2004, Articles 98 and 99.