27 110. In short, the IACHR finds that the State of Honduras did not provide effective protection of the ancestral lands of the Punta Piedra Community from occupation by third parties, nor did it guarantee the peaceful possession thereof through the respective clearing of title, which kept the Community in a situation of permanent conflict. Accordingly, the Commission concludes that the State of Honduras violated Article 21 of the American Convention, in connection with Articles 1.1 and 2 of this instrument, to the detriment of the Garifuna Community of Punta Piedra and its members. C. Article 25 of the American Convention, in connection with Articles 1.1 and 2 of this Instrument 111. Pursuant to the findings of the Inter-American Court in its legal precedents, Article 25.1 of the American Convention provides for the obligation of States Parties to “guarantee, to all persons under 115 their jurisdiction, an effective judicial recourse against acts that violate their fundamental rights.” The Court has emphasized as well that the existence of this guarantee “is one of the basic pillars, not only of 116 the American Convention, but also the rule of law in a democratic society,” and that the inexistence of 117 such effective remedies, “places the person in a status of lack of defense.” Additionally, it has held that: Article 25 of the Convention is closely linked to the general obligations under Articles 1.1 and 2 of the Convention, attributing functions of protection to the domestic law of the State Parties, which results from the fact that the State is responsible for designing and providing an effective recourse, as well as to ensure the due application of such recourse by the judicial authorities. In that sense, according to Article 25 of the Convention, the domestic legislation shall assure due application of effective recourse before the competent authorities in order to protect all persons under its jurisdiction against any acts violating their fundamental rights or involving the determination of their rights and obligations. 112. As regards indigenous and tribal peoples, the obligations under Article 25 of the American Convention assume that States grant effective protection that takes into account their specificities, their economic and social characteristics, as well as their situation of special vulnerability, 118 their customary law, values, and customs. Moreover, the jurisprudence of the Inter-American human rights system has determined that indigenous and tribal peoples have the right to effective and expeditious mechanisms to protect, ensure and promote their rights over ancestral territories, through which they are able to carry out the processes of recognition, titling, demarcation and delimitation of their 119 territorial property. 115 See inter alia IA Court of HR. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Preliminary Objections. Judgment June 26, 1987. Series C No.1, par 91; Massacre of las Dos Erres v. Guatemala, Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment November 24, 2009. Series C No. 211, par. 104; Case of Chitay Nech et al v. Guatemala, Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment May 25, 2010. Series C No. 212, paar. 190; and Case of the Xákmok Kásek. Indigenous Community v. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment August 24, 2010 Series C No. 214, par. 139. 116 See inter alia IA Court of HR. Case of Castillo Páez v. Peru. Merits. Judgment November 3, 1997. Series C No. 34, par. 82; Case of Escher et al v. Brazil. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment July 6, 2009. Series C No. 200, paar. 195, and Case of Usón Ramírez v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment November 20, 2009. Series C No. 207, par. 128. 117 See inter alia IA Court of HR. Case of Palamara Iribarne v. Chile. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment November de, 2005. Series C No. 162, par. 183, and Case of Usón Ramírez v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment November 20, 2009. Series C No. 207, par. 128. 118 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. 63. IA Court of HR. Case of the Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community. Judgment March 29, 2006. Series C No. 146, pars. 82, 83. 119 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. 138. Case of the Yakye Axa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay. Merits, Reparation and Costs. Judgment June 17, 2005. Series C No. 125, par. 143. IACHR, Indigenous and Tribal Peoples’ Rights over their Ancestral Lands and Natural Resources. Norms and Jurisprudence of the Inter-American Human Rights System. OEA/Ser.L/V/II.Doc.56/09, Decmeber 30, 2009, par. 335.