the State must guarantee the application of this law in good faith; (iv) pay attention to processes that emerge from the communities in order to legislate and enforce the right to prior, free and informed consultation in keeping with the standards, case law and other sources of international human rights law, with the communities’ participation in the legislative process; (v) implement programs agreed upon with the Garifuna people that generate significant impact and historical memory in society; (vi) exclude the Garifuna communities from the municipal town centers, and (vii) adopt a multicommunal title for the area of Iriona and Gracias a Dios that would encompass 15 adjoining communities. Subsequently, in their final written arguments, the representatives added the following guarantees of non-repetition: (i) abandon any measure that has an impact on the territories without a prior, free and informed consultation; (ii) repeal the Property Act because its provisions render the scope of an eventual judgment of the Court illusory and would allow the repetition of facts such as the ones of this case. 342. For its part, the State objected to the request to repeal chapter III of the Property Act, on the “Procedure for regularizing real estate for indigenous and AfroHonduran peoples,” and related laws, because the Punta Piedra community “should avail itself of the actions or remedies established by domestic law, as it has not […] lodged requests before the competent national authorities and there is no record that these have been denied in a final ruling or decision.” The State also rejected, in general, the other measures of non-repetition proposed by the representatives. E.1 Adaptation of domestic law 343. With regard to the request to adapt domestic law, the Court considered that none of the provisions of the Property Act and its Regulations were applied to the instant case; therefore, it has insufficient elements concerning the regulations currently in force to conclude that the State failed to comply with Article 2 of the American Convention (supra paras. 211 and 254). Consequently, owing to the lack of a causal nexus between the facts and the violations that have been established, it is not appropriate to order this measure. 344. Regarding the norms concerning prior, free and informed consultation, the Court considered that article 82 of the Regulations to the General Mining Act was imprecise as regards the stages prior to consultation, in contradiction with the provisions of article 50 of this act which refers to the relevant international standards. Therefore, the Court concluded that the State was responsible for the violation of the right to communal property and of Articles 1(1) and 2 of the Convention, as well as the right to cultural identity (supra para. 224). 345. Consequently, the State must, within a reasonable time, adopt all sufficient and necessary measures to ensure that its mining regulations do not impair the right to consultation, in the sense that this should be conducted even before prospection or exploration programs are authorized. 346. In this regard, the Court recalls that when interpreting the laws applicable to indigenous matters, the judges and organs involved in all levels of the administration of justice are bound to exercise ex officio a “control of conventionality” between domestic law and the American Convention, evidently within their respective terms of reference and the corresponding procedural regulations. In this task, the judges and organs involved in the administration of justice must take into account not only the treaty, but also how it has been interpreted by the Inter-American Court, the ultimate 95