4 applied so that the protected guarantee is truly practical and effective, bearing in mind the special nature of human rights treaties.7 7. That the Court considers that the hearing held to monitor the points pending compliance in this case, characterized by the good will and spirit of cooperation of the parties, was extremely useful. * * * 8. That, regarding the obligation to adopt the legislative, administrative, and any other measures necessary to create an effective mechanism for the delimitation, demarcation, and titling of the properties of the indigenous communities (third operative paragraph of the Judgment), the State and the representatives of the members of the Mayagna (Sumo) de Awas Tingni Indigenous Community (hereinafter “the Community” or “the Awas Tingni Community”) created a joint committee, known as “Committee II” on April 16, 2002, in order to monitor the State’s compliance with this operative paragraph. 9. That, on March 27, 2003, the State advised that, among the advances made within the framework of “Committee II” was the adoption of Act No. 445, entitled “Act concerning the Communal Property Regime of the Indigenous Peoples and Ethnic Communities of the Autonomous Regions of the Atlantic Coast and of the Coco, Bocay, Indio and Maiz Rivers” of January 23, 2003, which was published in official gazette No. 16 on that date. This law established a specific procedure and the institutional authorities for the demarcation and titling of the lands of the Indigenous Peoples and Ethnic Communities of the Atlantic Coast and the Coco, Bocay, Indio and Maiz Rivers. The stages of the procedure established in this law include: (a) presentation of the demarcation application to the Intersectoral Demarcation and Titling Commission (CIDT), which must be accompanied by a document called a “diagnosis”; (b) dispute settlement; (c) measurement of the land and marking of the boundaries; (d) titling, and (e) clearance (dealing with non-indigenous third parties who may be in the area claimed). 10. That the State indicated that this act “complied with the part of the Court’s judgment […] concerning […] the establishment of legislative measures leading to the delimitation, demarcation and titling of the lands of the Awas Tingni Indigenous Community” and that this process “will be adapted to the mechanisms and procedures which this act […] establishes for the demarcation and titling of all the indigenous lands in Nicaragua,” including those of the Awas Tingni Community. 11. That on November 18, 2003, the State indicated that it had promoted the implementation of the said Act No. 445 both financially and operationally, and undertaken to prioritize and accelerate the process of demarcating the lands of the members of the Community and shorten, insofar as possible, the maximum time limits defined by the said act for the different stages of the demarcation and titling procedure. Lastly, in its reports, the State referred to the measures taken and the 7 Cf. Ivcher Bronstein v. Peru. Competence. Judgment of de the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 24, 1999, para. 37; Case of the Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers. Monitoring compliance with judgment, supra note 5, sixth Considering paragraph; and Baena Ricardo et al. v. Panama. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 11, 2008, sixth considering paragraph.