59 delimitation, and reparation of the titled areas, thus preventing the peaceful possession of the lands. On the other hand, as stated by the Commission, even though the State argued that the administrative proceeding implied a reparation phase that concluded with compensation for the improvements made by outsiders to the Community’s lands, it was not proven in this case that it was in fact carried out. On the contrary, the State itself pointed out its lack of execution due to the economic outlays it implied. 218. Similarly, it stated that the Community started two administrative proceedings to recover the 22 blocks granted by the Municipality to the Workers’ Union. It argued, regarding the expropriation process started before the INA on January 7, 2002, that an expropriation order was not issued by that entity until December 7, 2007, almost six years later, as indicated by the State, and that said period was “without a doubt” unreasonable for a process of that nature. It also recalled that to recover the 22 blocks granted to the Workers’ Union of the Municipality of Tela, the Community filed an appeal of annulment of the agreement before the Municipality. The Commission observed that it was not until four years after it was filed that the Office of the Attorney General of the Republic issued a favorable opinion and that, despite that, ten years after the process was started a final decision had not yet been issued. 219. Due to the aforementioned, the Commission concluded that the State of Honduras did not comply with the obligation to provide the Community of Triunfo de la Cruz with a recourse that took into consideration their distinctive features, their economic and social characteristics, their common law, values, uses, and customs, that was, in turn, effective in solving their territorial claim, ensuring the Community’s right to be heard with their due guarantees and adjusted to a reasonable time period to guarantee their rights and obligations. Therefore, the Commission concluded that the State violated Articles 25 and 8 of the American Convention in detriment of the Community of Triunfo de la Cruz and its members, in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 of the same. 220. Moreover, the Commission observed that the Community of Triunfo de la Cruz filed a series of claims regarding infringement of their right to property, related mainly to (i) the sale of traditional lands;223 (ii) threats, aggressions, harassment, and persecution suffered by their authorities and leaders as a consequence of their activities in defense of traditional lands; 224 and (iii) the constant violence and unsafety generated by third parties in their territory. The Commission recalled it has been proven that part of the Community’s traditional lands had been the object of sales promoted by state authorities to companies and third parties without their authorization and that the Community, through the CODETT, presented a criminal complaint before the Public Prosecutors’ Office of Ethnic Matters for the sale of community lands to the company IDETRISA, which concluded with the final acquittal of the municipal officials involved. It also verified that based on the facts considered proven, the Office of the Attorney General of the Republic became aware of these sales, which led to the Office of the Attorney General of the Republic starting an investigation whose effective culmination was not reported. The Commission added that from the evidence included in the case file it can be concluded that state authorities participated directly in this and other sales of indigenous lands, and that up to this date responsibility has not been determined nor have the corresponding sanctions, if appropriate, been applied to the state authorities implied in the gradual stripping of traditional Garífuna lands. Similarly, it indicated that this occurred despite the fact that those sales have resulted in a situation of grave vulnerability for the Community and its members, and that state authorities expressly acknowledged that the lands sold in the 22-block area were the Community’s traditional property, which, as indicated by the State itself, were returned to it. 223 Moreover, the Commission indicated that it has been proven that, as a consequence of the territorial conflict presented, members of the Community of the Triunfo de la Cruz denounced before state authorities acts of harassment, persecution, threats, and even murders of leaders that were against the stripping of community lands. It recalled that because of the sale of indigenous lands and lack of protection against occupation of its traditional territories by non-Garífuna peoples, there was a situation of permanent conflict. As denounced by the Community, that situation was characterized by the invasion of armed people in indigenous territories, the destruction of crops, the introduction of machinery against the Community’s will, the burning of homes, among other acts of violence, that prevented them from enjoying a pacific possession of their traditional territory. 224