69 progressively improved to a point at which it became acceptable.” However, the State did not provide evidence supporting those assertions. The evidence at the IACHR’s disposal indicates that the Triunfo de la Cruz Community is considered the zone “most impacted by” the project, and the only EIA submitted describes the serious environmental impact it would generate and a “participation and socialization process” that does not meet the aforementioned standards. 264. Regarding the establishment of a protected area in Punta Izopo, it is regarded as a proven fact that the decision was taken by the President of the Republic through Executive Decision No. st 1118-92 of June 1 , 1992, and the National Congress approved its establishment through Decree No. 261-2000 of December 29, 2000. The State pointed out that a “consensus building and socialization process” took place. However, it did not provide proof of that process to the IACHR, in accordance with the aforementioned standards of the inter-American system, despite the fact that, as the IACHR ascertained, the establishment of the protected area involved restricting access to the area which prevented the Community from exercising its traditional cultural practices. 265. With respect to the sale of community land, the State also failed to demonstrate that it had complied with its obligations. On the contrary, as already indicated by the IACHR in this report, such sales were conducted with complete disregard for the Community’s right to its ancestral property. There were even interferences in the political organization and life of the Community that were completely contrary to the aforementioned principles. 266. For these reasons, the IACHR concludes that the State violated the right to property established in Article 21 of the Convention, to the detriment of the Community of Triunfo de la Cruz and its members because it failed to ensure their effective participation, in accordance with their customs and traditions, in connection with plans and decisions that affect their traditional lands. D. Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention in conjunction with Articles 1.1 and 2 thereof 1. Procedures related to the collective property of the Community of Triunfo de la Cruz and its members 267. As established by the Inter-American Court in its case law with respect to indigenous peoples, the obligations established in Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention assume that States grant effective protection taking into account their particular features and economic and social characteristics, 351 as well as their particularly vulnerable situation, their customary law, values, habits, and customs. In addition, the jurisprudence of the inter-American human rights system has determined that indigenous and tribal peoples have a right to effective and expeditious administrative mechanisms to protect, guarantee, and promote their rights regarding ancestral territories. Such mechanisms should make it possible to conduct the processes needed for the recognition, titling, demarcation, and delimitation of 352 their territorial property. 268. Furthermore, according to inter-American system case law, States are obliged to adopt measures designed to guarantee and give legal certainty to the rights of indigenous and tribal peoples with respect to ownership of their properties, inter alia by establishing special, fast, and effective mechanisms and procedures to resolve legal claims on said property. As the Inter-American Court has pointed out, the aforementioned procedures must comply with the due legal process and the same applies to any other procedure in which a ruling might affect the rights of persons. The effective remedies 351 I/A Court H.R. Case of the Yakye Axa Indigenous Community v Paraguay. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of June 17, 2005. Series C No. 125, paragraph 63. I/A Court H.R, Case of the Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community v Paraguay. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of March 29, 2006. Series C No. 146, paragraphs 82, 83. 352 I/A Court H.R. Case of the Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community v. Nicaragua. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of August 31, 2001. Series C No. 79, paragraph 138. Case of the Yakye Axa Indigenous Community v Paraguay. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of June 17, 2005. Series C No. 125, paragraph 143. IACHR, Indigenous and Tribal Peoples’ Rights Over Their Ancestral Lands and Natural Resources. Norms and Jurisprudence of the Inter-American Human Rights System. OEA/Ser.L/V/II.Doc.56/09, December 30, 2009, paragraph 335.