notes that those processes did not involve legal issues or discussions that could justify a delay of several years linked to the complexity of the matter"97. 93. In this regard, the analysis of complexity of the case must be made case by case. In this respect, facing a delay like the one that took place in the present case, it corresponds to the State invoking the complexity of the case as a justification for the delay, to argue aspects of the concrete case that make it complex, as well as the causal link between such aspects and the specific delays. 94. In the present case, the Commission considers that the State did not prove that the administrative process of demarcation of the Xucuru territory involved particularly complex issues or discussions that relate to the delay of more than sixteen years. On the contrary, the Commission notes that the extent of the territory claimed was clearly defined from the early stages of the administrative process. As for the activity of the interested parties, the Commission notes that it has no elements to conclude that their performance hindered in any way its development. In respect to that item, the Inter-American Commission also wishes to clarify that, in accordance with Brazilian law, recognition, demarcation and titling of indigenous lands is the exclusive competence of the State (the Federal Union), through the FUNAI. In that sense, the Xucuru indigenous collective or its members as individuals in any way influenced the observed delays in the development process. 95. In contrast to the above and in relation to the behavior of the state authorities in the administrative process, the evidence shows that their performance was not diligent. Indeed, the Commission notes several significant periods of time where the process did not progress as a result of the lack of the action from the authorities and even as a result of actions designed to obstruct the administrative process. The Commission notes that the identification report of the Xucuru indigenous territory, prepared by the Technical Group of FUNAI in 1989 was ratified by the Minister of Justice through Portaria No. 259/MJ/92, three years later, in May 1992. Another three years passed without significant progress between 1992 and 1995. After the decision of the Minister of Justice on the challenges presented by non-indigenous occupants based on Decree No. 1,775, no significant progress was made between 1997 and 2001, that is, for four additional years. Finally, the Commission notes that, following the approval of the demarcation by the President of the Republic and the registration requirement promoted by FUNAI in 2001, the next step consisted in the registration of the indigenous land, and it took another four years partly due to the challenge filed by a State official in his official capacity in August 2002. The decision of such motion was issued almost three years later, on June 25, 2005. Finally, the record of the property as Union property was made on November 18, 2005, as noted, more than sixteen years after the administrative process formally initiated. 96. It follows that these delays are attributable either by omission or by action to the Brazilian State, without the State justifying these delays in a specific manner. Consequently, the Commission considers that the period that the administrative took was not reasonable under the terms required by the Convention. 97. Moreover, the Commission considers that the ineffectiveness of the administrative process is also evident in that, as noted above, it did not lead to effective removal of non-indigenous settlers from the titled areas, thus preventing the peaceful possession of the land by the Xucuru indigenous people and its members. Under domestic and international applicable law, the State had a duty to remove non-indigenous occupants from the demarcated indigenous lands, which would conclude with compensation for improvements made by them and their withdrawal from the Xucuru indigenous people lands. The IACHR has given as proved that the removal of non-indigenous occupants has not been fully performed after beginning the administrative process of demarcation in 1989 and found it to be in violation of the right to collective property. In this section, the Commission considers that the ineffectiveness of the administrative process to achieve the removal of non-indigenous settlers from the land, which was the mechanism available in the Brazilian system for the Xucuru people to achieve this purpose, is also a violation of the rights to a fair trial and judicial protection. Inter-American Court of Human Rights, 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. 181. 97 23