58 as a result of that attack on May 11, 1997. 221 No arguments or information was presented that would allow us to conclude that the situation of actual and imminent risk subsisted during those three years. 214. Therefore, the Court considers that even though it can infer that there was a real and imminent risk to Mr. Jesús Álvarez’s life in the year 1994, and that the State was aware of it, it does not have sufficient evidence to prove the permanence of that risk during the threeyear period up to his death. Thus, the Court does not issue a ruling regarding the alleged violation by the State to the obligation to prevent and the right to life, enshrined in Article 4, in relation to Article 1(1) of the Convention, in detriment of Mr. Jesús Álvarez. VII-4. RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL AND TO JUDICIAL PROTECTION (Article 8(1) and 25 of the Convention in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2) A. Arguments of the parties and of the Commission 215. The Commission argued that the allocation of traditional lands to the Triunfo de la Cruz Community was done through the filing of different requests before the INA, based on the existing agrarian legislation, specifically the Agrarian Law of 1924, the Law on Agrarian Reform of 1962, the Law on Agrarian Reform of 1974, and the Law on the Modernization and Development of the Agricultural Sector of 1992. The Commission added that the procedures resulting from these requests are not equal to an appropriate recourse for the acknowledgment of indigenous property, given they are not specific mechanisms that can respond to the titling of lands occupied by indigenous and tribal peoples or their demarcation, considering their specific characteristics, based on the historical occupation of the land. The Commission also argued that it is, instead, a general mechanism for the titling of individual property, based on the productive use of the land, which ignores the special, unique, and internationally protected relationship the indigenous and tribal peoples have with their traditional territories, which is absent in the case of non-indigenous people. 216. Regarding effectiveness, it stated that it was proven that the territorial reclaiming process of the Triunfo de la Cruz Community dates to 1946 and that for decades the Community had filed seven requests before the Honduran authorities for the acknowledgment of their traditional territory. The Commission indicated that lack of effectiveness of the existing mechanism in the domestic legislation is proven simply by the fact that the filing of multiple requests before the INA were necessary given that the process was not designed for the recognition of indigenous properties, based on historical occupation criteria. It pointed out that the territorial recognition process, considered as a whole, started in 1946 and has not yet terminated, since up to this date the Community does not have a collective property title deed over its traditional territory.222 217. Additionally, the Commission indicated that lack of effectiveness of the procedures followed before the INA can be seen in the fact that they did not result in the demarcation, The Commission referred to a publication in the Newspaper “El Tiempo” of May 21, 1997, which is not found in the case file. On the other hand, the representatives mentioned, in their brief of pleading and arguments, that Jesús Álvarez was murdered on April 24, 1997. 221 For example, as verified in the proven facts, on June 27, 1969 a request was presented for the granting of the Río Plátano area, process which was suspended in March 1996 and up to this date -27 years after it was started and close to 19 years after ratification of the American Convention by Honduras- was still pending. Likewise, as considered proven, on September 8, 1997 and July 8, 1998 the Community presented before the INA requests for titling of part of its traditional territory, without there being evidence that the procedures started because of these requests have been concluded with the issuing of a final and definitive decision. 222