themselves could, in itself, give rise to obstacles not only to access to justice, but also to achieve the execution of the decisions adopted. In this regard, the State must consider situations that could signify an obstacle for these peoples, such as: limitations to physical access to administrative and judicial facilities (distance, difficulties of access); 275 complexity and diversity of instances to be exhausted; high costs of processing judicial proceedings and hiring lawyers, and monolingualism in judicial proceedings. 276 Accordingly, the Court finds that the need to exhaust other remedies to obtain compliance with the obligations that the State has already assumed, obstructs them instead of promoting their execution and this may result in an excessive or exaggerated effort that prejudices the Punta Piedra community. 250. In addition, the Court considers that the State’s arguments regarding the failure to file an administrative complaint and other judicial remedies (supra para. 230) are time-barred because they were not submitted to the Court at the appropriate procedural moment, that is in the State's answering brief. Also, they did not form part of the arguments concerning the corresponding preliminary objections; rather, they are arguments that the State incorporated into its final written arguments to defend itself. 251. Based on the foregoing, the Court considers that, for the effects of this case, the conciliation agreements adopted were appropriate to achieve the freeing of the indigenous territory of encumbrances that corresponded to the State ex officio. However, the failure to implement the agreements by which the Honduran State was bound, in other words, the lack of direct execution without requiring the filing of other judicial proceedings, made them ineffective, and this prevented the Punta Piedra Garifuna community from truly using and enjoying the territory titled to it. Therefore, the State violated Article 25(1) and 25(2)(c) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument to the detriment of the Punta Piedra Garifuna community and its members. B.1.2 Alleged lack of a domestic remedy to protect the territories of the Punta Piedra Garifuna community vis-à-vis third parties (Article 2 in relation to Articles 1(1) and 25 of the Convention) 252. As this Court has indicated, the State alleged in general terms the existence of domestic remedies when the property titles were issued (1993 and 1999) (supra paras. 229 and 230) that, according to Honduras, could protect the Punta Piedra Garifuna community’s right to property. However, although the State provided norms in relation to those remedies, it did not demonstrate how they ensured full use and States must guarantee indigenous and tribal peoples physical access to administrative or judicial facilities or centers for the administration of justice in charge of investigations, as well as ensuring their participation in the processing of judicial, administrative or any other type of procedures, without this entailing excessive or exaggerated efforts for the victims due to distance, access roads to the said institutions or the high costs of proceedings. Cf. Mutatis mutandis, Case of Tiu Tojín v. Guatemala. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 26, 2008. Series C No. 190, para. 100. 276 States must ensure that members of the community understand and are understood in legal proceedings, by providing them with interpreters or other effective means. Cf. Case of Tiu Tojín, supra, paras. 92 and 100; Case of Fernández Ortega et al. v. Mexico. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 30, 2010. Series C No. 215, paras. 200 to 201; Case of Rosendo Cantu et al. v. Mexico. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 31, 2010. Series C No. 216, paras. 184 and 185. Also, Article 12 of ILO Convention No. 169 provides that “[t]he people concerned shall be safeguarded against the abuse of rights and shall be able to take legal proceedings, either individually or through their representative bodies, for the effective protection of these rights. Measures shall be taken to ensure that members of these peoples can understand and be understood in legal proceedings, where necessary through the provision of interpretation or by other effective means.” 275 72