30 authorities granted deeds of domain to private individuals. It added that this occurred despite the express prohibition included in the collective title deeds of 1993 and 2001 to transfer the same to people who were not members of the Community. 93. Additionally, the Commission argued that the State did not previously, freely, and in an informed manner consult with the Community regarding the adoption of decisions that would affect or restrict their right to the collective property. These decisions would include the planning and execution of tourism projects and megaprojects, the creation of a protected area in part of the traditional territory, and the sales of community lands, referring also to the fact that “[t]he expansion of the urban area of the Municipality would [have] occur[ed] without consulting the Community.” Furthermore, in what refers to the creation of the protected area of Punta Izopo, it states that, even though the State had indicated that there was a negotiation and socialization process, no evidence was presented in this sense. Finally, it considered that “the beach and marine portions should not be excluded a priori from the possibility to be acknowledged as natural territories and resources used by indigenous peoples for their subsistence activities.” 94. The representatives added that the lack of delimitation and demarcation has occurred mainly because of state omissions since “the delimitation of only a part of the territory occurred 7 years after a title deed was granted to the community, without having delimited the total area of the territory, without including the ancestral territory, and based on information in which the territory had already been reduced by the invasions suffered.” The representatives referred to the Marbella and “Los Micos Beach and Golf Resort” tourism projects and indicated that “[t]he state and private actions in this sense started in the seventies, but no prior, free, and informed consultations have been carried out by the State before or after having taken on international obligations with the ratification of Convention 169 of the ILO, which demands these consultations.” Additionally, they argued that “the proposal for the allocation of the urban area was presented without the Community’s consent.” 95. Finally, the representatives argued in general terms that “[t]he State of Honduras has been implementing a practice of turning meetings with the leaders of indigenous federations into socializations of programs and projects it later classifies as consultations.” The representatives also argued that “despite the opposition of the Garífuna people, which in a consultation process requested by representatives of the same peoples stated their emphatic opposition to the Law [on Property of 2004] […] the government imposed an information process of what at that time was a bill,” which was prepared “with a methodology not agreed on and with criteria that reduced the possibilities of a prior, free, and informed consultation, replacing it with something it referred to as Indigenous Table,” thus violating “the principle of good faith enshrined in Article 6(2) of Convention [169 of the ILO].” 96. The State indicated that, pursuant to Article 346 of the Honduran Constitution, it had issued measures of protection for the rights and interests of the Community, both progressively and as per its legal and economic capacities, as proven with the title deeds of domain granted to it. Similarly, it stated that the land titling process for the Garífuna Communities involves three stages: titling, expansion, and remediation. With regard to the last stage, it made emphasis that there are several non-Garífuna occupants in the area claimed who have legal documents that prove their property rights, who are also protected by the national legislation. 97. The State also argued that within the area claimed by the Community as traditional area, there are beaches and seas, regarding which “according to the Theory of the Properties of Public Use included in the national civil legislation of most countries […] the appropriation of said areas is not possible nor can a title deed of domain be issued over them, and they are not within the realm of trade of humans, instead they are for the use of the entire nation,”