their control, had left or lost possession of their traditional lands retained the right to property over them, even in the absence of legal title, unless the lands had been lawfully transferred to third parties in good faith, and (c) the members of the indigenous peoples who had involuntarily lost the possession of their lands, and these had been transferred lawfully to innocent third parties, had the right to recover them or to obtain other lands of the same size and quality.169 132. Meanwhile, with regard to the guarantees of use and enjoyment of property, in the case of the Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community v. Nicaragua, the Court indicated that States must ensure the effective ownership of the indigenous peoples and refrain from taking steps that could lead to State agents, or third parties acting with their acquiescence or tolerance, adversely affecting the existence, value, use or enjoyment of their territory. 170 In the case of the Saramaka People v. Suriname, the Court established that State must ensure the right of the indigenous peoples to control and to own their territory without any type of outside interference by third parties.171 In Sarayaku v. Ecuador, the Court established that States must ensure the right of the indigenous and tribal peoples to control and to use their territory and natural resources.172 B.2.1.1 The failure to delimit, demarcate and grant title in this case 133. The Court has established that, based on the principle of legal certainty, the land rights of the indigenous peoples must be formalized by the adoption of the administrative and legislative measures required to create an effective mechanism for delimitation, demarcation and the granting of titles that recognizes these rights in the practice. 173 This is because the recognition of the right to indigenous communal property should be ensured by granting a formal property title, or other similar form of State recognition, that provides legal certainty concerning the indigenous ownership of land in the face of actions of third parties or of agents of the State itself, and that the “mere abstract or legal recognition of indigenous lands, territories or resources has almost no meaning if the property is not physically [delimited and demarcated].”174 134. In this regard, the Court already determined in the Saramaka case that the legal framework of the State of Suriname “merely grant[ed] the members of the […] people a privilege to use the land, which d[id not guarantee them the right to own and to control their territory without any outside interference. [… Therefore,] to obtain such title, the territory traditionally used and occupied by the members of the […] people must first be delimited and demarcated in consultation with such people and other neighboring peoples.”175 169 Cf. Case of the Yakye Axa Indigenous Community, supra, paras. 131 and 137; Case of the Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community, supra, para. 128, and Case of the Xákmok Kásek Indigenous Community v. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 24, 2010. Series C No. 214, para. 109. 170 Cf. Case of the Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community, supra, paras. 153 and 164. 171 Cf. Case of the Saramaka People, supra, para. 115. 172 Cf. Case of the Kichwa Indigenous People of Sarayaku, supra, para. 146. Additionally, in the case of the Garífuna Community of Punta Piedra and its members, in which the community already had title to the land, the Court established that the State must ensure the effective use and enjoyment of indigenous or tribal property and, to this end, various measures were required, including, “regularization, [which] consists of a process arising from the State’s obligation to remove any type of interference in the territory in question […] so that the Community [concerned] may, peacefully and effectively, use and enjoy full ownership of the collective property.” Case of the Garífuna Community of Punta Piedra and its members, supra, para. 181. 173 Cf. Case of the Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community, supra, para. 153 and 164, and Case of the Kuna Indigenous Community of Madungandí and the Emberá Indigenous Community of Bayano and their members v. Panama. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of October 14, 2014. Series C No. 284, para. 119. 174 Case of the Yakye Axa Indigenous Community, supra, para. 143, and Case of the Garífuna Community of Punta Piedra and its members, supra, para. 169. 175 Cf. Case of the Moiwana Community, supra, para. 210, and Case of the Saramaka People, supra, para. 115. 37