community. Therefore, on August 25, 2015, a delegation from the Court carried out this procedure to observe some areas of the territory claimed and to meet with the parties, the Commission, and various authorities and villagers. 12 First, the delegation overflew the territory related to the facts of the case. On its arrival, the delegation was received by numerous members of the Punta Piedra community. Later on, a meeting was held where different members of the community expressed their opinions regarding the problem areas in this case to the Court’s delegation. Then, the delegation visited the area of Cusuna where the Punta Piedra II non-metallic exploration concession would allegedly be located. Lastly, the delegation visited some parts of the village of Rio Miel (hereinafter also “the village of Rio Miel” or “Rio Miel”) and listened to the opinions of several inhabitants. On September 4, 18 and 22, 2015, the Court received the parties’ observations on the visit. 20. Deliberation of the case. The Court began to deliberate this judgment on October 5, 2015. III JURISDICTION 21. The Inter-American Court has jurisdiction to hear this case pursuant to Article 62(3) of the American Convention because Honduras has been a State Party to the American Convention since September 8, 1977, and accepted the Court’s contentious jurisdiction on September 9, 1981. IV PRELIMINAY OBJECTION ALLEGED FAILURE TO EXHAUST DOMESTIC REMEDIES A. Arguments of the parties and of the Commission 22. The State did not include a specific independent section on preliminary objections. However, in the conclusions to its answering brief, it argued that there had been a failure to exhaust domestic remedies with regard to the alleged violation of the right to property because the presumed victims had “not taken advantage of the actions or remedies established in the domestic jurisdiction, as they […] had not filed claims before the domestic authorities and there is no evidence that a final judgment or resolution had denied such claims.” The State also argued that judicial proceedings were underway in relation to the death of Félix Ordóñez Suazo and an arrest warrant was pending execution against the individual presumably responsible. Therefore, a ruling by the Inter-American Court was not appropriate. 23. The Commission noted that the only mention in the State’s answering brief that could be understood as a preliminary objection related to the alleged violation of the right to property. It indicated that: (i) it had been amply demonstrated that the Punta Piedra community had filed complaints on many occasions; (ii) before both the 12 The Court’s delegation that visited the community consisted of the President of the Court, Judge Humberto Antonio Sierra Porto; Alexei Julio, the Secretariat’s Legal Counsel; Jorge Calderón Gamboa, lawyer and Secretariat Coordinator, and Cecilia La Hoz Barrera, Secretariat lawyer. The State was represented by Jorge Abilio Serrano Villanueva, Assistant Attorney General, and Jesus Flores, INA engineer. The InterAmerican Commission was represented by Commissioner James Cavallaro and Erick Acuña, Commission Advisor. In addition, Miriam Miranda, OFRANEH General Coordinator, and other community leaders were present on behalf of the representatives. 10