73 282. Consequently, the States’ Parties have the obligation to take all kinds of measures to ensure that nobody is deprived of judicial protection and from exercising his or her right to a simple and 363 effective recourse. According to the jurisprudence of the Inter-American Court, the State has the obligation to ensure that “each State act that composes the investigation proceeding, and the entire investigation in itself, should be oriented at a specific purpose: the determination of the truth and the investigation, finding, arrest, prosecution and, if applicable, punishment of those responsible for the 364 events.” 283. As the Court has repeatedly pointed out, it is an obligation with respect to means, and not outcomes, that the State should adopt as a juridical obligation of its own and not as a simple formality 365 destined to fail from the start. In that sense, the investigation must be carried out with due diligence, 366 367 and in an effective, serious, and impartial manner, and within reasonable time limits. Moreover, the Inter-American Court has established that “domestic proceedings must be considered as a whole and the duty of the international tribunal is to find out if all proceedings were carried out in compliance with 368 international provisions,” since the right to effective judicial protection must be construed in such a way as to “to avoid undue delays and obstructions that lead to impunity, thus frustrating due judicial protection 369 of human rights.” 284. Along those same lines, the IACHR has indicated that, specifically in relation to indigenous peoples, when disputes over the land arise with third parties, the former have a right to obtain protection and reparation through appropriate and effective procedures; to be guaranteed the effective enjoyment of their right to property; to effective investigation and punishment of those responsible for attacks; and to the establishment of swift and effective special mechanisms for resolving legal conflicts 370 regarding the ownership of their land. In the same vein, Article 18 of the ILO’s Convention No. 169, ratified by the State of Honduras, establishes that “Adequate penalties shall be established by law for unauthorized intrusion upon, or use of, the lands of the peoples concerned, and governments shall take measures to prevent such offences.” 285. In the matter under review, the IACHR notes that the Triunfo de la Cruz Community lodged a series of complaints regarding encroachments on its right to property relating mainly to: (i) the sales of ancestral lands; (ii) threats, aggression, harassment, and persecution against its authorities and leaders as a consequence of their actions in defense of their ancestral lands; and (iii) the constant violence and insecurity generated by third parties on its territory. 363 I/A Court H.R., Case of Barrios Altos v. Peru. Judgment of March 14, 2001. Series C No. 75, paragraph 43. 364 I/A Court H.R., Case of Kawas Fernández v. Honduras. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of April 3 rd, 2009. Series C No. 196, paragraph 101. 365 I/A Court H.R., Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, paragraph 177; I/A Court H.R., Case of Cantoral Huamaní and García Santa Cruz v. Peru. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of July 10, 2007. Series C No. 167, paragraph 131; and I/A Court H.R., Case of Zambrano Vélez et al v. Ecuador. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 4, 2007. Series C No. 166, paragraph 120. 366 I/A Court H.R. Case of García Prieto et al v. El Salvador. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 20, 2007. Series C No. 168, paragraph 101; I/A Court H.R., Case of the Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers v. Peru. Judgment of July 8, 2004. Series C No. 110, paragraph 146; I/A Court H.R., Case of Cantoral Huamaní and García Santa Cruz v. Peru. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of July 10, 2007. Series C No. 167, paragraph 130. 367 I/A Court H.R. Case of Bulacio v. Argentina. Judgment of September 18, 2003. Series C No. 100, paragraph 114; I/A Court H.R., Case of the Rochela Massacre v. Colombia. Judgment of May 11, 2007. Series C. No. 163. Paragraph 146; I/A Court H.R., Case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison v. Peru. Judgment of November 25, 2006. Series C No. 160, paragraph 382. 368 I/A Court H.R. Case of Baldeón García v. Peru. Judgment of April 6, 2006. Series C No. 147, paragraph 142. 369 I/A Court H.R. Case of Myrna Mack Chang v. Guatemala. Judgment of November 25, 2003. Series C No. 101, paragraph 210. I/A Court H.R., Case of Bulacio v. Argentina. Judgment of September 18, 2003. Series C No. 100, paragraph 115. 370 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 113. IACHR, Democracy and Human Rights in Venezuela, 2009. Doc. OEA/Ser.L/V/II, Doc. 54, December 30, 2009, paragraphs 1062-1066; 1071; 1137 – Recommendations 1 to 4. IACHR, Third Report on the Situation of Human Rights in Colombia. Doc. OEA/Ser.L/V/II.102, Doc. 9 rev. 1, February 26, 1999, paragraphs 21-27 and Recommendation 3.