return of the community’s lands. It also indicated that, “following the relocation of the
Rio Miel inhabitants, the State must adopt the necessary measures to prevent new
invasions of the community’s territory by third parties. Likewise, the State must refrain
from taking decision that affect this territory without conducting a prior, free and
informed consultation in order to obtain its consent.”
320. The representatives requested: (a) total restitution of the Punta Piedra
community’s lands that are in the hands of the inhabitants of Rio Miel; (b) annulment
of all land titles granted to third parties over communally titled land (in all the Garifuna
communities), and (c) legal recognition of the possession of ancestral land of all the
Garifuna communities. In their final written arguments, the representatives asked that
the entire territory of the Punta Piedra community be freed of encumbrances,
considering not only the areas invaded by new settlers, but also the other areas
possessed by third parties, the forest and the functional habitat. To this end, they
requested the establishment of comprehensive mechanisms to relocate the new
settlers, and the necessary security measures to protect the life and integrity of the
members of Rio Miel, and the establishment of specific time frames to free the land of
encumbrances. They also requested the immediate adoption of comprehensive
measures to prevent the continuation of the conflict in the area and so that, when the
lands have been returned, there will be no further invasions of the Garifuna territories.
321. In its answering brief, the State “propose[d] to again update the appraisal of
the improvements made by the [Rio Miel inhabitants] and also to allocate an additional
five (5,000,000.00 Lps.) to six million lempiras (6,000,000.00 Lps.) to purchase a
property to relocate the members of the village of Rio Miel. However, during the public
hearing of the case, the State 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.”
322. In Chapter IX, the Court determined that the State had violated Articles 21 and
25 of the Convention because it had failed to ensure the use and enjoyment of
communal property by freeing it of encumbrances, and because it had failed to execute
the agreements reached (supra paras. 189, 202 and 251); therefore, these omissions
allowed a gradual increase in the occupation of the communal territory, depriving the
Punta Piedra community of the peaceful and effective use and enjoyment of its
territory (supra paras. 189 and 197). The Court also noted that more than 15 years
have passed since the State assumed the obligation to free the territory of
encumbrances and, at this time, other settlers are established in that area.
323. The Court finds that, in order to achieve full reparation for the violations that
have been proved by the restoration of the violated rights, it is incumbent on the State
to free of encumbrances the traditional lands that the State titled to the Punta Piedra
community and to ensure implementation of the agreements reached. The State must
comply with this obligation to free the territory of encumbrances ex officio and with
extreme diligence (supra para. 186). In this regard, the State must remove any type
of obstacle or intervention in the territory in question (supra para. 181); in particular,
by ensuring the full and effective ownership of the members of the Punta Piedra
90