extension of rural land […] covering 1,513.54 hectares, based on article 14 of ILO Convention 169 […] recognizing the community’s right to a functional habitat; however, the granting of the said title had originated the land ownership conflict with the inhabitants of the village of Rio Miel who, when the last title was granted, possessed 600 hectares. 37. Regarding the legal arguments, the State indicated that it had ensured the right to property of the Punta Piedra Garifuna community, but “failed to ensure its peaceful possession by freeing the land of encumbrances.” However, in the conclusions to its answering brief, it indicated that it had not violated Article 21 of the American Convention. 38. Regarding the measures of reparations, the State proposed to conduct a new appraisal of the improvements made by the inhabitants of the village of Rio Miel and, in addition, to allocate the sum of five or six millions lempiras to acquire a plot of land to relocate them. However, it rejected the other reparations requested by the representatives because, at the time of the settlement, the peasant farmers of the village of Rio Miel occupied a territory of approximately 3.48 hectares and not 600 hectares as indicated by the representatives, and this reduced the claim for compensation due to destruction of crops. 39. During the public hearing in the case, the State indicated that it “has never acknowledged and does not acknowledge violating the right to property of the Punta Piedra Garifuna community.” Also, it made the following proposals: (i) “that the Punta Piedra Garifuna community accept that the State […] pay it for the land that is currently occupied by the Rio Miel inhabitants and the said land becomes the property of the inhabitants of Rio Miel”; (ii) “that the Punta Piedra Garifuna community accept that the State […] grant it an area of land equal to the one occupied by the inhabitants of Rio Miel in another place adjacent to their previous title,” or (iii) “that the Rio Miel community […] pay the Punta Piedra Garifuna community an annual rent for the land they occupy.” 40. Subsequently, in its final written arguments, the State asserted that “in view of the claims made by the Punta Piedra Garifuna community, it assumed the obligation to provide clear title to the territory granted to them.” It also indicated that it had not violated the right to property of the Punta Piedra community because, since issuing the title extending the area, it had clearly established that the community possessed full ownership over the area that they occupied, but not over the areas occupied by the inhabitants of Rio Miel. However, in the same brief, the State indicated that, under Honduran law, it was incumbent on the grantor of a property title to free the property in question of encumbrances and, therefore, in the instant case, this obligation was the responsibility of the State of Honduras. 41. The Commission indicated that “the State had presented an “acquiescence” to one fact of the case – namely, that it had failed to ensure peaceful possession of the territory by clearing the title – and one claim related to the payment of improvements. However, based on the language used by the State, it was not clear whether this “acquiescence” also refers to the legal effects of the said fact.” 42. The representatives pointed out that “the State seems to accept that it [did] not comply with the obligation to guarantee effective possession; however, it concludes that it did not violate Article 21 of the Convention […]. Therefore, it is not clear whether or not it ‘acquiesces,’ considering that, in matters relating to indigenous 14