50 V. ANALYSIS OF LAW A. Prior Issues 190. The Garífuna people, the product of cultural syncretism between indigenous and African peoples, has asserted its rights in Honduras as an indigenous people. As was shown above, the Garífuna people has preserved its own cultural forms, organizations, and social and cultural institutions, way of life, cosmovision, habits, customs, ceremonial rights, language, clothing, and special relationship to the land. Those factors make the Garífunas a unique culture and ethnic group, whose members share social, cultural, and economic characteristics not found in other sectors of Honduran society, particularly the special relationship with the land they occupied historically, as well as their collective notion of ancestral property. The indigenous character of the Garífuna people has not been controverted by the State of Honduras in this case. 191. The organs of the inter-American human rights system have maintained, based on article 1.1 of the Convention, that the members of indigenous and tribal peoples need certain special measures to guarantee the full exercise of their rights, especially respect for the enjoyment of their property rights, in 255 order to guarantee their physical and cultural survival. Therefore, the Commission will analyze the case of the Garífuna Community of Triunfo de la Cruz, bearing in mind the jurisprudence of the inter-American system concerning the rights of indigenous peoples and their distinct social, cultural, and economic characteristics, including their special ties to their ancestral territories. 192. The Commission also notes that the facts established in this report refer to historical processes that are ongoing. Nevertheless, the Commission will analyze them in light of the obligations assumed by the Honduran State since it ratified the American Convention on September 8, 1977 A. Article 21 of the Convention, in conjunction with Article 1.1 and 1.2 of the same instrument 1. The territorial rights of the indigenous peoples in the inter-American human rights system 193. The jurisprudence of the inter-American human rights system has repeatedly recognized the right of indigenous peoples to own their ancestral territories and the duty to protect that right arising out of Article 21 of the American Convention. In that regard, the IACHR has asserted that indigenous and tribal peoples have a communal property right to the lands that they have traditionally used and occupied, 256 and that “the character of these rights is a function of customary land use patterns and tenure.” Along the same lines, the Inter-American Court has pointed out that among indigenous peoples there is a communitarian tradition regarding a communal form of collective property of land, in the sense that 257 ownership of the land is not centered on an individual but rather on the group and its community.” 255 I/A Court H.R., Case of the Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community. Judgment of August 31, 2001. Series C No. 79, paragraphs 148-149, and 151; Case of the Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of March 29, 2006. Series C No. 146, paragraphs 118-121 and 131; and Case of the Yakye Axa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of June 17, 2005. Series C No. 125, paragraphs 124, 131, 135-137, and 154. 256 IACHR, Report No. 40/04, Case 12.053, Maya Indigenous Communities of the Toledo District (Belize), October 12, 2004, paragraph 151. See inter alia IACHR, Report No. 75/02, Case 11.140, Mary and Carrie Dann (United States), December 27, 2002, paragraph 130; and IACHR, Follow-Up Report – Access to Justice and Social Inclusion: The Road Towards Strengthening Democracy In Bolivia. Doc. OEA/Ser/L/V/II.135, Doc. 40, August 7, 2009, paragraph 160. 257 I/A Court H.R., Case of the Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community. Judgment of August 31, 2001. Series C No. 79. paragraph 149. Case of the Yakye Axa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of June 17, 2005. Series C No. 125, paragraph 131; Case of the Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of March 29, 2006. Series C No. 146, paragraph 118; Case of the Xákmok Kásek Indigenous Community v. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 24, 2010 Series C No. 214, paragraphs 85-87; Case of the Saramaka People v. Suriname. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 28, 2007. Series C No. 172, paragraph 85; Case of the Kichwa People of Sarayaku v. Ecuador. Merits and Reparations. Judgment of June 27, 2012. Series C No. 245, paragraph 145.