70 that States must provide under Article 25 of the American Convention legal “must be substantiated 353 according to the rules of due legal process (Article 8 of the Convention.” 269. The aforementioned procedures must comply with the rules of due legal process 354 established in Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention. In that regard, the Inter-American Court has specified that due legal process must be followed in administrative procedures and in any other 355 procedure in which the outcome could affect the rights of the persons. Given that requirement, the inter-American system’s case law has identified a series of characteristics required of these administrative mechanisms under Articles 8, 25, 1.1, and 2 of the American Convention. 270. These mechanisms and special procedures need to be effective. The Inter-American Court has examined, in light of the requirements for effective and prompt recourse established in Article 25 of the American Convention, whether the States have established administrative procedures for titling, delimiting, and demarcating indigenous land, and if they do whether they implement such procedures in 356 practice; and it has explained that, for compliance with requirements established in Article 25, it is not sufficient for there to be legal provisions that recognize and protect indigenous property – it is necessary that specific and clearly regulated procedures are in place for such matters as the titling or demarcation of 357 lands occupied by indigenous groups that take their particular characteristics into account, and that such procedures in practice effectively allow enjoyment of the right to territorial – that is to say, that in addition to the official existence of procedures, those procedures must yield results or responses to 358 violations of legally recognized rights. 271. In light of the above, the IACHR will analyze compliance with the obligations of the State of Honduras, checking, first, whether an appropriate procedure for titling, demarcating, and delimiting the collective property of the Garífuna Community of Triunfo de la Cruz is in place, and, second, the effectiveness of that mechanism. Finally, it will refer to compliance with those obligations in the remedies brought for the recovery of the ancestral lands that the IACHR is aware of. 272. With respect to the former, as the IACHR has previously ascertained, the adjudication of ancestral lands to the Community of Triunfo de la Cruz resulted from the filing of various applications with the INA, based on existing agrarian legislation. As mentioned earlier, that legislation consisted specifically in the 1924 Agrarian Law, the 1962 Agrarian Reform Law, the 1974 Agrarian Reform Law, and the 1992 Modernization and Development of the Agrarian Sector Law. 353 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 62. Case of the Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community v Paraguay. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of March 29, 2006. Series C No. 146, paragraphs 82, 83. 354 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 81, 82. 355 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 62. I/A Court H.R. Case of Baena Ricardo et al v. Panama. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of February 2nd, 2001. Series C No. 72, paragraph 127. 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. The effective remedies that the State must provide under Article 25 of the American Convention “must be implemented in accordance with the rules of due legal process (Article 8 of the Convention)” [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 62]. The Inter-American Court has indicated that the domestic administrative procedures that must comply with the guarantees of due legal process include, for instance, the procedures for recognizing indigenous leaders, procedures for recognizing legal status, and the procedures for restitution of land [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 81, 82]. 356 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 115. 357 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, paragraphs 122, 123. 358 I/A Court H.R. Case of the Xákmok Kásek Indigenous Community v. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 24, 2010 Series C No. 214, paragraph 140.