granting the property title of full ownership to the Punta Piedra Garifuna community through the National Agrarian Institute (hereinafter “INA”) it fail[ed] to clarify the situation of the land occupied by inhabitants of the village of Rio Miel; [consequently,] the title deed was defective as regards land ownership. In the Court’s opinion the said acknowledgement has legal consequences that have an impact on the violation of the right to property of the Punta Piedra community. Therefore, the Court will analyze the scope of the violations alleged by the Commission and the representatives in the following chapters (infra paras. 180 to 202). 47. Lastly, regarding the claims for reparations, the Court takes note that, initially, the State offered to update the appraisal of the useful and necessary improvements made by the inhabitants of Rio Miel and to allocate a sum of money to purchase a piece of land in order to relocate the inhabitants of the village of Rio Miel. However, during the public hearing of the case, it changed its position in relation to the one indicated in its answering brief. 48. The State’s initial proposal referred to a relocation of the members of the village of Rio Miel who were on territory belonging to the Punta Piedra community. However, the three proposals presented later at the public hearing entailed the inhabitants of Rio Miel remaining on the territory to which the Punta Piedra community had been granted title. 49. Consequently, the Court finds that the dispute presented subsists as regards the possible reparations in the case and will, therefore, rule on the matter. VI PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS 50. In this chapter, the Court will make some preliminary consideration on: (a) the State’s alleged failure to recognize the Punta Piedra Garifuna community as an original people, and (b) some elements of the factual framework related to the “Sierra Rio Tinto” National Park; the “Los Chorros” hydroelectric project; the BG Group’s oil exploration activities, and the new Fisheries Act. A. The State’s alleged failure to recognize the Punta Piedra Garifuna community as original people A.1 Arguments of the parties and of the Commission 51. During the public hearing of the instant case, the State indicated that “the Punta Piedra Garifuna community is not an original people of Honduras or of the Central American region. The land claimed by them […] belonged to the Misquita indigenous community.” Consequently, “[t]heir right to the territory they occupy is exactly the same as the right to land that is occupied by the inhabitants of Rio Miel or any other Honduran.” Subsequently, in its final written arguments, the State asserted that “the Punta Piedra Garifuna community is not an original community of Honduras or of the region; therefore, it cannot be considered an indigenous people.” It also indicated that “since it is not an original people, it cannot invoke the right to ancestral lands.” 27 27 In addition, in a communication of November 10, 2014, sent to the Court the same day, the State indicated that it has not changed its position, insofar as domestic law does not distinguish between 16