of indigenous people in cases of conflict with third parties, in the extent that the first are intrinsically linked to the cultural and material survival88. 83. The Inter-American Commission considers that it is proven that the Xucuru indigenous people has been unable to use and enjoy their lands peacefully. The State has recognized the continued presence of non-indigenous settlers in the Xucuru indigenous territory. It has also highlighted the efforts of the FUNAI to pay compensation to such occupants prior to performing their removal from the territory, since the year 2001. It is a fact, however, that for years the State abstained to effectively remove non-indigenous settlers from the Xucuru indigenous territory. Also, in its last communication to the Commission the State acknowledged that such removal process had not yet finalized. These elements allow the Commission to conclude that the State of Brazil has not complied diligently and in a timely manner with its obligation to remove all non-indigenous settlers from the territory of the Xukuru indigenous people. 84. In light of the above, the Commission finds that the belated recognition and the failure of the State to guarantee the property and peaceful possession thereof by the effective removal of non-indigenous occupants, implied that the system, in general and as applied to the case, did not effectively protected the rights to property and, therefore, constituted a violation of Article 21 of the American Convention, in connection with Articles 1.1 and 2 of the same international instrument, since the ratification of that instrument by Brazil on September 25 of 1992. Prior to that date, the IACHR considers that Article XXIII of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man applies. 85. The Commission also highlights that one of the consequences of the lack of timely recognition and of the lack of effective protection and removal of non-indigenous settlers from the land historically occupied by the Xucuru indigenous people led to a situation of insecurity and violence, as it has been considered proven. In other words, this situation has prevented the Xucuru indigenous people from peacefully enjoying and living in their territory, and instead has made them live in a situation of instability, conflict and even risk to the life and personal integrity of its members. Under the principle iura novit curia, the Commission considers that the effects of the actions and omissions of the State in relation to the collective property of the Xucuru people has also generated an impairment to mental and moral integrity of its members, in violation of Article 5.1 of the American Convention. C. Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1.1 of the same treaty and Article XVIII of the American Declaration 86. The Commission would like to remind that the State has a general obligation to provide effective judicial remedies to individuals claiming to be victims of human rights violations (Article 25), remedies that must be substantiated in accordance with the rules of due legal process (Article 8.1), all within the general obligation, for such States, to guarantee the free and full exercise of the rights recognized by the Convention to all persons subject to their jurisdiction (Article 1.1) 89. In this regard, the Inter-American Court has specified that due process be followed both in administrative proceedings and in any other procedure whose decisions may affect the rights of individuals 90. Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Case of Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community v Paraguay. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of March 29, 2006. Series C No. 146, par. 197 89 Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Case Velásquez Rodríguez v Honduras. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of June 26, 1987. Series C No. 1, para. 91; If Kichwa Indigenous People of Sarayaku Vs Ecuador. Merits and reparations. Judgment of June 27, 2012. Series C No. 245, para. 260; and Case of the Indigenous Peoples of Madungandí Kuna and Embera of Bayano and its Member Vs. Panama. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of October 14, 2014. Series C No. 284, par. 165. 90 Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Case Indigenous Community Yakye Axa v Paraguay. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 17, 2005. Series C No. 125, par. 62; Baena Ricardo et al vs. Panama. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 2, 2001. Series C No. 72, para. 127; Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community vs. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of March 29, 2006. Series C No. 146, paras. 82, 83. The Court has indicated that domestic administrative procedures to comply with the guarantees of due process include, for example, procedures for recognition of indigenous leaders, procedures for recognition of legal personality, and land restitution procedures [Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Case Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community v Paraguay. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of March 29, 2006. Series C No. 146, para. 81, 82]. 88 21