267. In this regard, in the affidavit he submitted to the Court, Armando Castillo, member of the Punta Piedra community, indicated that “[h]e died there [...]. Félix Ordóñez because he fought. He was a leader and that is why they killed him, so that [he would leave] them everything and not continue fighting. Félix defended his people with his life. […] They killed the people together with our brother Felix.” 291 268. Also, Paulino Mejía, a member of the Punta Piedra community and presumed victim in a complaint for usurpation and threats (supra para. 150) stated in the affidavit he submitted to the Court that he “personally experienced the massacre of [his] friend Félix Ordóñez; [they were] next to each other in the same field. This harassment still continues. Heavily armed men pass by frequently uttering threats, as if they were hunting deer or other animals. […] They just pass by shooting at the hills. Only God knows how they have not shot someone from the [community].” 292 269. Also, during the public hearing before the Inter-American Commission on March 7, 2006, Benito Bernárdez, a member of the Punta Piedra community, stated that “[e]very day the children of the community are harassed by the invaders, they harassed [his] father with high-caliber weapons.” He also stated that he is sure that when they return to Honduras, the invaders are going to realize that community members attended the hearing before the Commission and, consequently, they will be threatened. 270. The Court considers that the failure to free the territory of encumbrances has resulted in a generalized situation of danger for the Punta Piedra Garifuna community, characterized by threats and acts of harassment against individuals. Félix Ordóñez Suazo’s death occurred in this context. Based on the foregoing, the Court will now determine the degree of awareness that the State had about the situation of risk observed. 271. In this regard, the Court notes that the undertaking of December 13, 2001, signed by the Ad Hoc Interinstitutional Commission 293 and the representatives of the Rio Miel and Punta Piedra communities, recorded that the problems “jeopardized the physical integrity and possessions of the inhabitants of the communities represented” (supra para. 114). 272. The Court also verified that on May 22, 2003, Félix Ordóñez Suazo had filed a complaint before the General Directorate of Criminal Investigation against Luis Portillo, a member of the village of Rio Miel, for the presumed perpetration of the offense of land usurpation. 294 The complaint established that, in May 2003, Luis Portillo had tried to appropriate an area of approximately 2 to 5.5 hectares, located in the Punta Piedra hearing before the Inter-American Court on September 2, 2014, and statements made by Dionisia Castillo Ávila, Edito Suazo, Benito Bernárdez, Eduarda Ávila, and Joaquín Thomas during the on-site visit conducted on August 25, 2015 (merits file, folio 1127). 291 Statement of Armando Castillo Nuñez of August 21, 2014 (merits file, folio 462). 292 Statement of Paulino Mejía Castillo of August 21, 2014 (merits file, folios 494 and 495). 293 Composed of representatives of INA, the National Human Rights Commissioner and the Social Outreach Program of the Trujillo Diocese (supra, para. 113). 294 The Court has verified that the offense of usurpation established in the Honduran Criminal Code stipulates the following: “Article 227. Anyone occupying real estate or a right in rem shall be punished with two (2) to four (4) years’ imprisonment, notwithstanding that, as soon as the corresponding right in the case has been proved, the judge hearing the case shall order eviction from the property in question or the reestablishment of the right usurped.” Available at: http://www.ccit.hn/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/CodigoPena-Honduras.pdf. 77