98. Under the considerations expressed in this section, the Commission concludes that the State of Brazil failed to comply with the obligation to provide the Xucuru indigenous people and its members an effective remedy substantiated with due process to resolve their territorial claims. Therefore, the InterAmerican Commission concludes that the State violated Articles 8.1 and 25.1 of the American Convention to the detriment of the Xucuru indigenous people and its members in relation to the obligations under Article 1.1 of the same treaty, after the ratification of this instrument in September 25, 1992. 99. Considering that the violation declared in this section is based primarily on the delay and ineffectiveness of administrative proceedings taken as a whole and that the American Declaration would be only applicable to the case until 1992, the Commission has no sufficient elements to consider that autonomous violations of the right to justice enshrined in the Declaration between the start of the administrative process in 1989 and 25 September 1992 took place. In that sense, at this point the Commission limits its findings to the violation of the American Convention. 2. Pending legal actions in relation to the demarcation of the Xucuru indigenous territory 100. The Commission has considered proven that since 1992 non-indigenous settlers also filed legal actions of territorial nature claiming their property rights over areas included in the Xucuru indigenous territory. Thus, in March 1992, Milton do Rego Barros Didier and another filed a “motion to regain possession” and in February 2002, Paulo Pessoa Cavalcanti de Petribu and others brought an "ordinary action for the annulment of the administrative demarcation process". 101. The Commission has noted, in relation to indigenous peoples, that when conflicts arise with third parties for land, they are entitled to protection through appropriate and effective procedures; that they are guaranteed the full enjoyment of their right to property; and that rapid and effective special mechanisms are in place to resolve legal disputes over the ownership of their lands 98. 102. The information available indicates that the two legal challenges are still pending final decisions with the effect of preventing the completion of the full restoration of indigenous lands. 103. In analyzing the four elements to determine the reasonability of the time elapsed, the Commission notes that the behavior of state authorities has also been determinant in the delay of the two legal challenges. 104. Indeed, the Commission insists that the motion to regain possession filed in March 1992, was decided in the first instance in favor of non-indigenous occupants, on July 24, 1998, more than six years later. Civil Appeal AC178199-PE, meanwhile, was rejected on April 24, 2003, almost five years later. The 646.933-PE special appeal was rejected on November 6, 2007, more than four years later. Two more years passed until the decision on the first appeal of embargos de declaração, which was rejected on 11 December 2009. Finally, two other appeals of embargos de declaração were presented in February 2010 and are still pending, according to the evidence on file. Likewise, regarding the ordinary action filed in February 2002, it was decided in the first instance on June 1, 2010, more than eight years after its introduction. According to the information available, this ordinary action is still pending decision on appeal. The State did not submit specific justification regarding these time-periods, which are, in themselves, excessive. 105. Consequently, the Commission concludes that the duration of legal actions filed by nonindigenous settlers from the Xucuru indigenous territory, for which there is not a final decision after over 20 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; IACHR, DEMOCRACY AND HUMAN RIGHTS IN VENEZUELA. OEA/Ser.L/V/II Doc. 54 of 30 December 2009, pars. 1062‐1066; 1071; 1137 – Recommendations 1 to 4; and IACHR, THIRD REPORT ON THE HUMAN RIGHTS SITUATION IN COLOMBIA. Doc.. OEA/Ser.L/V/II.102, Doc. 9 rev. 1, February 26, 1999, pars. 21-27 and Recommendation 3. 98 24