60 221. It summarized the above indicating that during the years in question in this case, multiple claims filed before police and prosecuting agents were presented indicating a variety of non-isolated, permanent acts of violence that occur within a general situation of vulnerability of the traditional territory of the Garífuna Community of Triunfo de la Cruz. It argued that despite the numerous claims found in the case file, the State did not inform, in any of the cases, of its execution of a serious, effective investigation without any delays addressed to finding out the truth and determining responsibilities. Considering the above, the Commission observed that the prolonged and repetitive nature of the acts of violence, persecution, and illegal sale of the lands, make it evident that the lack of action on the State’s behalf regarding the complaints filed made the search for protection and obtainment of justice by the Community and its members unsuccessful. Therefore, it concluded that in practice, the judicial system did not offer an effective response for the protection of the indigenous territory, which has resulted in multiple consequences for the members and leaders of the Garífuna Community of Triunfo de la Cruz. The Commission, based on the information it had access to, considered that the lack of a State response to the recourses filed left the presumed victims in a vulnerable situation that has led its members to remain in a continuous situation of uncertainty, anxiety, and fear. 222. By virtue of the aforementioned, the Commission concluded that the Honduran State had not guaranteed an adequate and effective recourse to respond to the claims of ancestral territory and the recognition of the lands titled in favor of the Community, nor had it carried out the corresponding investigations regarding the claims filed for property damages and threats, harassment, and persecution suffered, preventing them from being heard in a proceeding with due guarantees; thus the Commission considered that the State violated Articles 25 and 8 of the American Convention. 223. The representatives agreed with the Commission’s statements and indicated that the State had failed to comply with the obligations of respect and guarantee enshrined in Article 1(1) and the duty to adopt domestic provisions enshrined in Article 2, in relation to Articles 8 and 25. They stated that, as per the facts denounced, they consider that the State has not guaranteed the victims of this case an effective recourse to respond to the Community’s claims regarding its rights to lands and natural resources. 224. On its part, the State argued, with regard to the proceedings referring to the Community’s collective property, that in some cases in which individuals have possession and a title deed over the Community’s lands, the omission in the filing of the public criminal action is preceded by adjective stipulation number 54 of the Code on Criminal Proceedings, which states that in the event of a duplicity of title deeds, the conflicts must be solved before the civil courts, given that an irregular purchase of the land by an individual eliminates the animus to usurp that is present in violent possession processes. Regarding the proceedings that refer to the criminal claims filed by the Community and its members, the State pointed out that the arguments made by the representatives and the Commission “lack grounds and veracity, given that [in this case], in both criminal and administrative matters, the proceedings defined in the State’s legal code were used […], the requests that [have] been presented have been answered, both those presented before the Public Prosecutors’ Office and [INA], which can be verified in the respective case files and in the case of the latter institution, it keeps the case files that contain records, actions, and administrative procedures carried out by it.” 225. It also indicated that the Garífuna community as well as the rest of Hondurans have always had access to all recourses and guarantees existing in the legislation and the Constitution of the Republic, in that sense, with regard to the 22 blocks the mayor’s office of Tela granted its union in sale and of which the Garífuna Community of Triunfo de la Cruz requested expropriation; up to this date the domestic proceedings have not been exhausted by the petitioners since they have the writ of protection against the resolution issued by the