60 production but a material and spiritual element which they must fully enjoy, even to preserve their 300 cultural legacy and transmit it to future generations. 231. The IACHR considers that domestic legislation contains provisions that run counter to the above. Indeed, the Property Law establishes that if third parties are present on communal lands the tenure of indigenous and afro-Honduran peoples shall take preference over titles issued to third parties 301 that never possess them. Yet, third parties with title deeds for these peoples’ land and who have had 302 tenure or possessed the land are entitled to continue possessing and using it. Moreover, the law establishes that a third party that has received a title deed for communal land, which is such that it can be annulled, shall be compensated, prior to the return of the lands to the affected communities, for any improvements that party has made. In contrast, third parties in indigenous lands that have no title at all 303 may negotiate staying on with the community. In the IACHR’s opinion, such provisions render the preferential right of the indigenous peoples based on ancestral possession of their lands illusory. Nor do they assist its right to collective ownership of an exclusively indigenous territory. 232. In addition to the above, the IACHR points out that, as we shall see in the following paragraph, it was precisely the actions of State authorities that led to overlapping titles to the Community’s ancestral territory, as well as to the existence of numerous conflicts triggered by nonindigenous persons that have taken possession through fraud and/or violence. 233. In light of the above considerations, the IACHR concludes that the State of Honduras did not guarantee the delimitation, demarcation, and effective protection of the Community’s ancestral lands, not even those to which it has title because of the legal uncertainty of those titles, which led to overlapping titles and frequent illegal occupation of indigenous lands. This has kept the Community in a state of permanent conflict due to the acts of private individuals and public authorities, depriving it the effective exercise of its right to property and peaceable possession, contravening Article 21 of the Convention. iii) Impairment of the ancestral territory due to the expansion of the urban core and the sale of community lands 234. As shown in the section on proven facts, parallel to the Triunfo de la Cruz Community’s territorial claims, State authorities performed actions that directly contravened its rights. In particular, as the IACHR considers proven, through Resolution No. 055-1989 of April 24, 1989, the INA authorized the expansion of the urban core of the Municipality of Tela by 3,219.80 hectares, a decision approved by the IHT on January 17, 1992. The IACHR has ascertained from the evidence provided that the expansion of the urban core of Tela encompassed a large part of the Community’s ancestral territory. It also considers that it has been proved that on January 30, 1992 a notarized deed was granted to the Municipality, for the area awarded, which led to the Municipality selling off plots of land to private individuals. 235. Regarding this, the State argued that the expansion of the urban core of the Municipality did not impair the Triunfo de la Cruz Community’s rights, because the first title in fee simple was granted to it in 1993, four year after the INA resolution authorizing the expansion of the municipal core. The IACHR considers that that argument should be dismissed because, as the organs of the inter-American system have consistently established, indigenous territorial property is a form of property that is not based on official recognition by the State, but rather on the traditional use and possession of the land and resources; the territories of indigenous and tribal peoples “are theirs by right of their ancestral use or 300 Case of the Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community. Judgment of August 31, 2001. Series C No. 79, paragraph 149. See also in: I/A Court H.R., Case of the Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community. Judgment of March 29, 2006. Series C No. 146, paragraph 222. 301 Property Law decree 82-2004 of June 15, 2004. Article 96. 302 Property Law decree 82-2004 of June 15, 2004. Article 97. 303 Property Law decree 82-2004 of June 15, 2004. Articles 98 and 99.