2 adequately comply with its duty. Specifically, when a case refers to claims over lands that are possibly inhabited by different groups of people (indigenous or tribal groups and peasants or settlers, as in this case), the factual circumstances should be verified, as far as possible, before the mentioned submission of the case before the Court. 5. In this case, from the assertion of the facts in the factual framework of the Merits Report by the Inter-American Commission the actual situation of the territory claimed by the Garífuna Community of Triunfo de la Cruz is not clear, especially regarding third parties inhabiting the lands in dispute and the scope of this situation, the number of said third party inhabitants, the extension of the lands occupied by them, and the circumstances presented by them as grounds for their presence. This situation was not clarified in the Commission’s other briefs and interventions. This means that, in absence of other means of evidence in the case file, the Court initially did not have enough clarity regarding the factual situation in which the human rights’ violations object of the controversy allegedly occurred. 6. The references in the Merits Report, specifically regarding the presence of third parties in the territory claimed by the Community, were related in their majority to certain sales of lands to those third parties. For example, the Commission stated in general terms that there had been a “gradual dispossession of the ancestral lands, carried out partly by state authorities themselves and, with its acquiescence, by individuals,”1 and more specifically indicated that “the situation became notoriously worse with the granting by public authorities of property deeds over areas possessed by the Community to tourism business groups and individuals.”2 Additionally, the Commission stated that “by virtue of the expansion of its urban area […] the Municipality transferred to individuals different plots of land belonging to the ancestral territory of the Garífuna Community”3 and that “one of the greatest problems the Community currently faces is the presence of multiple ladino or non-Garífuna people in their ancestral territory, even in those areas granted in full ownership.”4 7. Despite these references, it was not clear what the current situation regarding the different areas was or where the third parties and the members of the Community were specifically settled, respectively. Likewise, from the information provided it could not be adequately defined who the different owners and occupants of the lands claimed by the Community were or their different realities regarding their use and occupation. 8. In this regard, it must be analyzed that if the Court does not have sufficient information concerning the situation in which the people involved in the facts of the case live, it would be difficult to issue a judgment that takes into consideration all circumstances relevant to the resolution of the issue presented. Moreover, it is necessary to avoid, as much as possible, that judicial decisions become a seed for social confrontation or to promote situations of conflict. As previously indicated, judgments of the Inter-American Court try to do justice in the case submitted to its jurisdiction, avoiding damages to third parties that do not participate in the litigation of the case. 1 Merits Report, para. 98. 2 Merits Report, para. 99. See also Merits Report, para. 108. 3 Merits Report, para. 107. See also Merits Report, para. 123. 4 Merits Report, para. 142.