37 a) the territories that were granted to the Community in full ownership and in guarantee of occupation (supra paras. 68, 69, and 70), and b) the territories that the State itself acknowledged domestically as the Community’s traditional territory (Plot A1 of 408 hectares) (supra para. 115 and infra Map Annex). 118. Without detriment to that stated, it is necessary to clarify that the aforementioned is defined only to the effects of analyzing the State’s international responsibility in this case, pursuant to the evidence forwarded to the Court. Similarly, that conclusion does not prevent other authorities from acknowledging that the traditional territory of the Community of Triunfo de la Cruz may have greater dimensions, if this were the case, in other judicial or extrajudicial proceedings. B.3. The alleged lack of demarcation and delimitation of the lands titled in favor of the Community and the territories that were acknowledged as traditional by the State 119. Regarding the arguments related to the alleged lack of titling, delimitation, and demarcation of the traditional territories of the Community of Triunfo de la Cruz, the Court recalls that: a) on September 9, 1981 the State of Honduras acknowledged the contentious jurisdiction of this Court (supra para. 18); b) since the adoption of the Constitution of 1982, the State was compelled 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” (supra para. 108); c) the Law on Agrarian Reform, modified by the Law for the Modernization and Development of the Agricultural Sector of 1992, indicates in its Article 92 that the State would be obliged to title in full ownership the territories of “[t]he ethnical communities that prove the occupation of the land where they are settled for a period of no less than three years,” and d) Honduras ratified Convention 169 of the ILO on March 28, 1995, which went into force for Honduras on March 28, 1996, and whose Article 38 compels States to recognize to indigenous and tribal peoples the right to property and possession of the lands traditionally occupied by them, for which they must adopt the measures necessary to determine said lands and guarantee the effective protection of their property and possession rights. 120. From the aforementioned it can be concluded that, pursuant to the mentioned regulations, there is no doubt that the domestic obligation to demarcate and delimit the territories of indigenous communities exists since, at least, the adoption of the Constitution of 1982, date on which the State had already acknowledged the Court’s contentious jurisdiction. The basis for this can be found in the fact that the constitutionally-established obligation to adopt measures of protection of the rights and interests of the existing indigenous communities in the country means that the State, in order to guarantee these communities their right to property over the lands where they are settled, must guarantee the use and enjoyment of their properties, which necessarily implies, in attention to the principle of legal certainty, that the State must demarcate and delimit the territories of indigenous and tribal communities. 121. Regarding this specific matter, the Court has previously stated that “a merely abstract or juridical recognition of indigenous lands, territories, or resources, is practically meaningless if the property is not physically delimited and established” (supra para. 104).151 122. On the other hand, the domestic obligation to title the territories claimed by the indigenous communities is in force as of the year 1992 with the adoption of the Law for the Modernization and Development of the Agricultural Sector. Regarding the international Cfr. Case of the Yakye Axa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay, para. 143; Case of the Saramaka People v. Suriname, para. 116, and Case of the Kuna Indigenous People of Madungandí and the Emberá Indigenous People of Bayano and its members v. Panama, para. 135. 151