delimitation and the demarcation of their lands without delays, in order to prevent conflicts and attacks by others82. Likewise, indigenous and tribal people and its members are entitled to have their territory reserved for them, with no presence of third parties or non-indigenous settlers. The State has a correlative obligation to prevent invasion or colonization of indigenous or tribal territory by other people, and to perform the necessary actions to relocate those non-indigenous inhabitants of the territory who are settled there. Therefore, the IACHR underscores that the State's obligation to recognize and guarantee the exercise of the right to communal property of indigenous people "necessarily requires the state to delimitate and effectively demarcate the territory covered by the right of property of the [corresponding indigenous or tribal] people and adopt appropriate measures to protect the right of the [respective] people to its territory." 83 78. Likewise, at the United Nations level, the Committee against Racial Discrimination in its General Observation No. 23 exhorted the States to protect rights of indigenous people to control and use their lands when they have been occupied by third parties without their consent84. 79. Finally, the Inter-American Court has indicated since 2001 in the case of the Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Vs. Nicaragua in 2001 that States must ensure the effective property of indigenous people85. Subsequently in 2007, in the case of the Saramaka people Vs. Suriname, the Court emphasized the State's obligation to guarantee the right of indigenous people to effectively control and be owners of their territory without any external interference86. 80. With regards to the continued presence of non-indigenous settlers in the Xucuru indigenous territory, the State argued that it cannot ignore the rights of "good faith" non-indigenous settlers and that they have to be compensated for the improvements made to indigenous lands. 81. The Commission agrees with the State to the extent that, as has been expressed by the Court, both "the private property of individuals" as well as the "communal property of the members of indigenous communities" are protected by the Convention. However, as has been established in the jurisprudence of the Inter-American system, when these rights are in conflict, the problem should be solved in accordance with the principles governing the restrictions on human rights 87. Therefore, with respect to such conflicts, it is the obligation of the State to ensure that, in practice, indigenous peoples can occupy and use their ancestral lands and territories in which non indigenous are present, by means of adequate mechanisms of compensation in their favor, given that different for indigenous collective property, private property is essentially susceptible of compensation. 82. While it may be understood that there is a conflict of rights and/or interests between the Xucuru indigenous people and non-indigenous occupants, the Commission notes that the jurisprudence of the Inter-American system supports the preferential nature of the right to indigenous property, while the same, it is not susceptible to be compensable, unlike the individual property. Specifically, in the case Comunidad Indígena Sawhoyamaxa vs. Paraguay, the Inter-American Court the State has the duty of prioritizing the rights IACHR, DEMOCRACY AND HUMAN RIGHTS IN VENEZUELA. OEA/Ser.L/V/II Doc. 54 of 30 December 2009, par. 1137 – Recommendation 2; and 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 30 December 2009, par. 113. 82 IACHR. Report No. 40/04, Case 12.053, Maya Indigenous Communities of the Toledo District (Belize), October 12, 2004, par. 132. UN Committee against Racial Discrimination, General Comment No. 23 on the rights of indigenous peoples, 2007, para. 5. Available in: http://tbinternet.ohchr.org/Treaties/CERD/Shared%20Documents/1_Global/INT_CERD_GEC_7495_S.doc (accessed on May 20, 2015) 85 Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Case of the Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community v Nicaragua. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 31, 2001. Series C No. 79, par. 148-153. 86 Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Case of the Saramaka People. Vs. Suriname. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 28, 2007. Series C No. 172, par. 115. 87 Inter-American Court of Human RIghts, Case Xákmok Kásek Indigenous Community vs. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 24, 2010, Series C No. 214, par. 143 83 84 20