34 106. In this same sense, the Court has held that the State’s failure to effectively delimit and demarcate the boundaries of the territory over which a right to collective property of an indigenous people exists may create a permanent climate of uncertainty among the members of the above-mentioned peoples, because they have no certainty as to where their right to communal property extends geographically and, consequently, they do not know the area over which they may freely use and enjoy the respective properties. 139 107. Additionally, in the Case of the Kuna Indigenous People of Madungandí and Emberá de Bayano and its members v. Panama, the Court pointed out that various Member States of the Organization of American States that had accepted the Court’s compulsory jurisdiction – for example, Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Paraguay, Peru, and Venezuela – had, in some way, incorporated the obligations to delimit, demarcate, and title indigenous lands into their domestic laws, at least in the 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s, and the States have clearly recognized their obligation to delimit, demarcate, and title indigenous lands.140 108. With regard to the obligations that arise from stipulations of Honduran domestic law, the Court verified that the Constitution of 1982, currently in force, states in Article 346 that “[i]t is the duty of the State to adopt measures for the protection of the rights and interests of the indigenous communities in the country, especially of the lands and forests in which they are settled.”141 Similarly, the Law for the Modernization and Development of the Agricultural Sector of 1992 stated in Article 65 the reform of Article 92 of the Law on Agrarian Reform so it would include inter alia the following “[t]he ethnical communities that prove the occupation of the lands where they are settled, for the time period of no less than three years stated in Article 15 of this Law as per its reforms, will receive property titles in full ownership without cost, issued by the National Agrarian Institute in the time period defined in the aforementioned Article 15” and the Law on Agrarian Reform was in fact reformed in that sense.142 109. Additionally, the Law on Property, approved by Decree N° 82-2004 of May 28th, 2004 states in Article 93 that “[t]he State, based on the special importance the relationship with the land has for cultures and their spiritual values, acknowledges the right indigenous and afro-Honduran peoples have over the lands they have traditionally possessed, provided it is not prohibited by law.” Moreover, Article 94 of the same Law states that “the property rights over the lands of these peoples will be titled in their favor collectively. The members of the communities have a right of possession and usufruct according to the traditional forms of possession of communal property.”143 B.2. Considerations regarding the Community’s traditional territory 110. As stated in the chapter on Facts, it has been proven that: a) in 1946 the Community of Triunfo de la Cruz requested the granting of a communal title over the land occupied by Cfr. Case of the Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community v. Nicaragua, para. 153, and Case of the Kuna Indigenous People of Madungandí and the Emberá Indigenous People of Bayano and its members v. Panama. para. 136. 139 Cfr. Case of the Kuna Indigenous People of Madungandí and the Emberá Indigenous People of Bayano and its members v. Panama. para. 118. 140 141 Political Constitution of the Republic of Honduras, Article 346. Law for the Modernization and Development of the Agricultural Sector, National Congress, Decree No. 3192, of March 5, 1992, The Gazette No. 26713 of April 6, 1992, Article 65; Law on Agrarian Reform, The Head of State with his Cabinet, Executive Order No. 170, of December 30, 1974, The Gazette No. 21482 of January 8, 1975, Article 92. 142 143 Law on Property, National Congress, Decree No. 82-2004, of May 28, 2004, Articles 93 and 94.