B.1.1 The Ad Hoc Interinstitutional Commission and other measures taken to free the territory of the Punta Piedra Garifuna community of encumbrances 235. The Court reiterates that the Punta Piedra Garifuna community received two property titles in 1993 and 1999. However, part of the territory titled to them was owned by third parties; in other words, the territory was titled without the State having freed it of encumbrances. In this case, the obligation to provide clear title has been considered an obligation ex officio of the State, as this Court has established (supra para. 186). 236. In this regard, even though Honduras has ratified ILO Convention No. 169, the Court notes that the State has not proved that the administrative, judicial or other domestic remedies that existed at the time of the facts were compatible, or applied in keeping, with the relevant standards in order to ensure the right to property of the Punta Piedra community by protecting its full use and enjoyment. However, the Court notes that, in this situation and as an example of its efforts to comply with its obligation to free the territory titled to the Punta Piedra community of encumbrances, the State created an Ad Hoc Interinstitutional Commission as a conciliation mechanism in order to achieve a peaceful, consensual and out-of-court solution to the problem and also undertook to respect a series of agreements adopted also by the inhabitants of the Punta Piedra and Rio Miel communities in an undertaking dated December 13, 2001. 237. Specifically, in this undertaking the Honduran State recognized that it “[was] obliged to free the land of encumbrances for the Punta Piedra community by paying the inhabitants of Rio Miel for improvements”; that INA “should diligently seek a lot where the compensated families could be relocated,” and that, “to follow up on the agreements made herein, [the Inter-Institutional] Commission was authorized to prepare a list of requests and a work schedule […] [to] guarantee a solution to the conflict […].” 256 238. Also, the purpose of holding subsequent meetings, signing the 2006 memorandum of understanding and creating an Interinstitutional Commission in 2007, was to implement the said agreements in order to comply with the State’s obligation ex officio to free the land titled of encumbrances (supra para. 111). The State even recognized in its final arguments that, since the title had a land ownership defect, the State was obliged to resolve this (supra para. 40). 239. In this regard, the Court will refer to the suitability and effectiveness of the conciliation mechanisms available at the time of the events, in particular the creation of the 2001 Ad Hoc Interinstitutional Commission and the conciliation agreements adopted. The Court has established that the existing remedies must be adequate and suitable, which means that “the function of these remedies, within the domestic legal system, must be suitable to protect the legal situation violated. Numerous remedies exist in all legal systems, but not all of them are applicable in every circumstance. […] A norm is meant to have an effect and should not be interpreted in such a way as to negate its effect or to lead to a result that is manifestly absurd or unreasonable.” 257 Cf. Undertaking signed on December 13, 2001, supra (evidence file, folio 32). Case of Velásquez Rodríguez, Merits, supra para. 64 and Case of Brewer Carias v. Venezuela. Preliminary objections. Judgment of May 26, 2014. Series C No. 278, para. 86. 256 257 68