payment of improvements and relocation of third party occupants, so that the Punta Piedra community may use and enjoy its collective property in a peaceful and effective manner. B.3 Inability of the Punta Piedra community to use and enjoy its territory 182. In light of the fact that the State has acknowledged its obligation to ensure the use and enjoyment of the land by freeing it of encumbrances (supra para. 114), the Court will analyze the moment at which the State became aware of third-party occupation of the territory in question in order to proceed to remove the nonindigenous occupants. 183. The Court notes that, according to several statements, the Rio Miel occupation began between 1987 and 1993 (supra para. 102); however, there are no official records of this. It is worth recalling that it was in 1993 that the Punta Piedra community received its first title, for an area of approximately 800 hectares over a territory for which it had possessed a communal title (título ejidal) since 1920 (supra para. 92). Subsequently, as certified by INA on December 22, 1999, in file No. 10775– 52147, 225 the Punta Piedra community requested the expansion of its territory over an area of 3,000 hectares. However, only 1,513 additional hectares were demarcated and titled – expressly excluding 46 hectares belonging to individuals who had a title to land in the area – and the boundaries were defined (supra paras. 96 and 98). The total area of the territory titled to the Punta Piedra community amounted to 2,314 hectares (supra para. 101). It should be noted that, in the expansion title of December 6, 1999, the exclusionary clause which was revoked on January 11, 2000 (supra para. 100) stipulated that “the areas occupied and exploited by individuals who are not members of the community shall be excluded from the area awarded, and the State reserves the right to dispose of them in order to award them to the occupants who meet the legal requirements.” Neither the number of people nor the area occupied were specified. 184. In addition, due to occupation claims, in 2001, the parties signed an undertaking (supra para. 114), in order to free the territory granted of encumbrances and to prevent conflicts, and also, in 2006, a memorandum of understanding 226 for the same purpose, in which the problem of third-party occupation was explicitly reiterated (supra para. 119). In 2007, INA issued the report of the cadastral survey, recording the increase in third-party occupation of the area granted by the second title. In addition, since the problems persisted, the case was lodged before the Inter-American Commission on October 29, 2003. The Admissibility Report was issued on March 24, 2010, and the Merits Report on March 21, 2013, describing the seriousness of the situation as a result of the failure to free the land of encumbrances. Lastly, according to the 2013 field report, the village of Rio Miel had developed infrastructure for utilities such as water and electricity. 185. The Court notes that the State was aware of the third-party occupation of the area, at least following the evaluation of the 1999 expansion request; and then, with the final title deed on January 5, 2000. Subsequently, once the territory had been Cf. INA note of December 22, 1999 (merits file, folio 632). The measures requested to clear the title were the signature of an undertaking in 2001; requests to the National Congress to adopt budget items; requests to INA for information; adoption of a memorandum of understanding in 2006, and participation in working meetings to establish how the territory would be freed of encumbrances. 225 226 55