Venezuela, have incorporated the obligation of prior consultation with indigenous communities on any administrative or legislative measure that directly affects them. 224. Consequently, the Court has verified that the State did not conduct an adequate and effective process to ensure the right to consultation of the Punta Piedra Garifuna community with regard to the exploration project on its territory. In addition, domestic laws lacked precision regarding the stages prior to the consultation and this resulted in non-compliance with this right for the effects of this case. Therefore, the Court concludes that the State is responsible for the violation of the right to communal property recognized in Article 21 of the Convention, as well as of Articles 1(1) and 2 of this instrument, in relation to the right to cultural identity, 247 to the detriment of the Punta Piedra community and its members. IX-2 RIGHT TO JUDICIAL PROTECTION IN RELATION TO ARTICLES 1(1) AND 2 OF THE AMERICAN CONVENTION 225. In this chapter, the Court will analyze the disputes relating to the violation of Article 25 of the Convention in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 of this treaty and, to this end, it will assess the procedures for the protection of the property of the Punta Piedra community vis-à-vis third parties and the mechanisms used to achieve the return of their lands. A. Arguments of the parties and the Commission 226. The Commission concluded that the State had violated Article 25 of the Convention, in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 of this instrument, owing to its failure to guarantee an adequate and effective remedy to respond to the territorial demands and the claims for the land titled in favor of the Punta Piedra Garifuna community. In this regard, the Commission indicated that the ancestral territories of the Punta Piedra community, titled by INA in 1993 and 1999, had not been freed of encumbrances even though the community had taken various steps, at the administrative level, before INA and other State authorities to obtain clear title. The Commission indicated that the State had created two ad hoc commissions, signed agreements according priority to negotiation and conciliation between the two communities (Punta Piedra and Rio Miel) and required INA to conduct two appraisals of the improvements made by the thirdparty occupants from Rio Miel. Nevertheless, the Commission argued that these measures had not been either adequate or effective because they did not allow the ancestral territory of the Punta Piedra community to be freed of encumbrances and protected. 227. In particular, the Commission indicated that the creation of the interinstitutional commissions was insufficient and did not provide legal certainty to the interested parties owing to their temporary nature and lack of authority clearly defined by law, so that, in light of the refusal of the Rio Miel peasant farmers to abandon the area in exchange for payment for the improvements, the Punta Piedra community had no remedy allowing them to recover their ancestral territory. 228. The representatives agreed, in general, with the Commission’s arguments and added that the Punta Piedra community had submitted, in good faith, to the processes 247 Cf. Case of the Kichwa Indigenous People of Sarayaku, supra, paras. 217 and 220. 65