40 the beaches are an important element of their religious ceremonies” and that “the places of Garífuna residence adjacent to beaches are at the heart of this marine culture.”157 133. In that same sense, the presumed victim Ángel Castro stated that the Community’s “survival” depended on the land, as well as “the seas for fishing” and that “[t]he ocean is […] part of the Garífuna culture.158 He also stated that their exploitation of the sea is “under the norms of our use and customs” and that they are “limited in the exploitation of nature,” in the sense that they obtain “what [they] need for [their] sustenance […] [and they do so] in a traditional manner.” In this sense, he specified that the percentage of the Community dedicated to the sea “[h]as currently been reduced little by little, but we are talking about 75%.” Moreover, there are “third parties that […] exploit these areas, but in an industrial manner.” 134. Regarding the alleged traditional territory, which would include some degree of seas and beaches, as indicated, this Court will only issue judgment on the alleged violations to the right to communal property related to the territories granted to the Community in full ownership and in guarantee of occupation, and over those that the State itself acknowledged domestically as traditional territory corresponding to the Community (Plot A1 of 408 hectares) (infra Map Annex and supra para. 117). 135. Without detriment to the above, the Court recalls that its case law regarding the territories of indigenous and tribal peoples has referred to land areas, which, in their case, include rivers, lakes, or natural resources of an aquatic nature. In that same sense, Article 14(1) of Convention 169 of the ILO generally states that “1. [t]he rights of ownership and possession of the peoples concerned over the lands which they traditionally occupy shall be recognized. In addition, measures shall be taken in appropriate cases to safeguard the right of the peoples concerned to use lands not exclusively occupied by them, but to which they have traditionally had access for their subsistence and traditional activities.” 136. Similarly, the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples states in Article 25 that “[i]ndigenous people have the right to maintain and strengthen their distinctive spiritual relationship with their traditionally owned or otherwise occupied and used lands, territories, waters, and coastal seas and other resources and to uphold their responsibilities to future generations in this regard.” On its part, the United Nations’ Human Rights Committee has dealt with the relationship of indigenous or tribal peoples with fishing resources and their use of water resources in some cases such as, for example, in the cases of Apirana Mahuika et. al. v. New Zealand (Communication No. 547/1993) and Angela Poma Poma v. Peru (Communication No. 1457/2006).159 In these cases, the Committee has acknowledged that Article 27 of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (PIDCP) protects the development of traditional economic and social rights in a joint manner as part of the right to have their own cultural lifestyle, that is, as cultural expressions an indigenous community of peoples could have. 137. Therefore, even though in this case the Court considers it is not necessary to issue judgment on the alleged violation of Article 21 of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of World Bank Inspection Panel, Research Report – Honduras Land Administration Program, Report N° 39933HN of June 12, 2007 (evidence file, folios 159 to 160). 157 Statement offered before the Inter-American Court by José Ángel Castro, during the public hearing held on May 20, 2014. Mr. Castro stated that: “[t]he Garífuna communities in Honduras are distributed all along the Atlantic coast, even in Guatemala, Belize, and part of Nicaragua, given that since the sea is part of our culture, we feel very good in front of the sea for recreation, the breeze, and many other things.” 158 Cfr. United Nations, Human Rights Committee, Communication No. 547/1993 (Apirana Mahuika et al. v. New Zealand), UN Doc. CCPR/C/70/D/547/1993, of November 16, 2000, para. 9(3); United Nations, Human Rights Committee, Communication No. 1457/2006 (Angela Poma Poma v. Peru), UN Doc. CCPR/C/95/D/1457/2006, of April 24, 2009, paras. 2(1) and 7(3). 159