31 and that Article 617 of the Civil Code of Honduras inter alia states that “the adjacent sea and its beaches are national properties of public use or public properties.” The State concluded by saying that the national legislation acknowledges the right of the Garífuna peoples to fully access and use the sea and beach areas, “but it cannot issue a title deed of domain for its exclusive use and possession because they cannot be the object of appropriation.” 98. Moreover, the State indicated in general terms that the titles granted by the INA to the indigenous and afro-Honduran populations in communal property have been duly recorded in the Agrarian Registry, as well as in the Registry of Real Estate and Mercantile Property, and therefore are valid before third parties and, in the event of any misappropriation, they may turn to the corresponding instances to file the respective claims. With regard to the alleged lack of prior consultation, the State argued that for the construction of the Punta Izopo National Park it held a free, prior, and informed consultation with the Community and that, regarding its Management Plan, “for the elaboration and execution of said management plan, socialization workshops w[ere] held with the communities of the area, including the foundation of Triunfo de la Cruz, and said area has been incorporated into execution through the Community Consulting councils.”125 It added that “the Secretariat of the State and the Justice and Human Rights Offices have programmed and defined a methodology to develop workshops in four areas, including those of the Community of Triunfo de la Cruz, which will be carried out with the participation of the petitioners OFRANEH.” B. Considerations of the Court 99. Below, the Court will analyze the arguments of the parties and of the Commission in the following order: 1) Standards applicable to the right to communal property; 2) Considerations regarding the Community’s traditional territory; 3) The alleged lack of demarcation and delimitation of the lands titled in favor of the Community and the territories that were acknowledged by the State as traditional; 4) The alleged lack of protection of the Community’s territory against third parties, and 5) The obligation to guarantee the right to consultation with regard to the right to communal property of the Garífuna Community of Triunfo de la Cruz. B.1. Standards applicable to the right to communal property 100. The Court recalls its case-law in this matter, in the sense that Article 21 of the American Convention protects the close relationship indigenous peoples have with their lands, as well as with natural resources and the intangible elements derived from them. The indigenous and tribal peoples have a community-based tradition relating to a communal form of collective land ownership; thus, land is not owned by the individual but by the group and its community.126 These notions of land ownership and possession do not necessarily conform to the classic concept of property, but the Court has established that they deserve equal protection under Article 21 of the American Convention. Ignoring the specific forms of the right to the use and enjoyment of property based on culture, practices, customs, and beliefs of each people, would be tantamount to maintaining that there is only one way to use and The State made reference to the “Management Plan of the Punta Izopo National Park 2012-2016 updated through Agreement number 040-2012, in force for a 12-year period, specifically from 2013-2024”. 125 Cfr. Case of the Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community v. Nicaragua. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of August 31, 2001. Series C No. 79, paras. 148 and 149, and Case of the Kuna Indigenous People of Madungandí and the Emberá Indigenous People of Bayano and its members v. Panama. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of October 14, 2014. Series C No. 284, para. 111. 126