the regulations in force at that time, especially the Agricultural Sector Modernization and Development Act, 231 do not reveal any specific substantive provision that textually regulates the protection of the indigenous communal lands from invasion by third parties. 209. Nevertheless, it is worth noting that, among other provisions, the expansion title expressly mentions article 14 of ILO Convention No. 169 which stipulates the obligation of the State to take measures to safeguard the right of the indigenous peoples to use their lands that are “not exclusively occupied by them, but to which they have traditionally had access for their subsistence and traditional activities” (supra, para. 97). Therefore, the Court considers that, since the dispute relates mainly to the second title, the express references to article 346 of the Constitution, international obligations such as article 14 of ILO Convention No. 169, and the creation of the ad hoc interinstitutional commissions, represented a sufficient protection framework in the instant case for the State to be able to protect and ensure the right to property of the Punta Piedra community. Therefore, for the purposes of this case, non-compliance by the State with Article 2 of the Convention has not been proved in relation to the substantive laws in force at that time. 210. Regarding the laws in force at present, the Court takes note that, in addition to the constitutional mandate previously mentioned, the 2004 Property Act 232 and its regulations 233 expressly recognize the communal regime of indigenous lands to be inalienable, indivisible and immune from seizure, as well as the importance that their relationship with the lands has for their culture and their spiritual values. Moreover, Honduras ratified ILO Convention No. 169 in 1994, 234 and it entered into force in 1995; it also voted in favor of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples during the 2007 UN General Assembly. However, although the representatives and the Commission indicated some articles of the Property Act that might be ambiguous or inconsistent, the Court notes that no provision of this instrument was applied to this specific case; therefore, a ruling in abstract is not appropriate. Also, the Court notes that it will not rule on the argument of the Commission and representatives concerning the failure to consult the Property Act and its supposed “socialization,” because insufficient arguments and evidence were provided in that regard. 211. Based on the above, the Court considers that it does not have specific and consistent elements to analyze the supposed incompatibility of the said laws. Therefore, for the effects of this case, no direct violation by the substantive legislation applicable to this matter has been proved in relation to Article 2 of the American Convention, in connection with Articles 1(1) and 21 of this instrument. However, the country, especially the lands and forests where they are settled.” Available at: http://www.oas.org/dil/esp/ Constitucion_de_Honduras.pdf. 231 Article 92 of this Law recognizes the right of “ethnic” communities, who prove occupation of the lands where they are settled for a period of three years, to receive property title free of charge. However, it does not include any provision on measures to protect such lands. Cf. Agricultural Sector Modernization and Development Act, supra. 232 Adopted by Decree No. 82-2004 of June 29, 2004. Available at: https://www.ccit.hn/wp-content/ uploads/2013/12/LEY-DE-PROPIEDAD.pdf. 233 Regulations to the Property Act (C.D.I.P Resolution No. 003-2010). Available at: http://www.poderjudicial.gob.hn/CEDIJ/Documents/Reglamento%20Ley%20de%20Propiedad.pdf 234 Adopted by Decree No. 26-94 of the National Congress on May 10, 1994, published in the Official Gazette “La Gaceta” on July 30, 1994. ILO Convention No. 169 entered into force in Honduras on March 28, 1995 (supra, para. 84). 61