29 the Garifuna Community of Punta Piedra and the peasants settled in Rio Miel, giving a high priority to negotiation and mediation between both communities; different efforts of the INA aimed at identifying the third parties who are occupying the territory of the Garífuna of Punta Piedra and assess the improvements made by them; as well as some steps taken by the authorities of the Office of the Public Prosecutor with regard to the complaint for usurpation brought by the Community in 2010. 118. In fact, as the IACHR has established as fact in the preceding paragraphs, in April 2001, the ad-hoc Inter-Institutional Commission made up of INA representatives, the National Human Rights Commissioner and the Social Ministries of the Diocese of Trujillo, was established “as a body of conciliation and consensus-building in the effort to reach a peaceful solution to the conflict.” Later, on February 20, 2007, an agreement was reached to create an Inter-Institutional Commission made up of representatives from the INA, SERNA, Office of the Attorney General of the Republic, Secretariat of the Interior, Office of the Prosecutor for Ethnic Groups and the Punta Piedra Community. Furthermore, as corroborated by the facts, a total of three commitments were reached: (i) on December 13, 2001, between State authorities, the petitioning organization and the Punta Piedra Community; (ii) on September 28, 2006, between State authorities, the petitioning organization and the Punta Piedra Community; and (iii) on April 20, 2007, between the State authorities and representatives of the Rio Miel peasants. In addition, the INA made no less than two assessments to determine the improvements to be paid to clear the property title. 119. However, as the Commission has deemed proven, this clearing of title was not done effectively. In the opinion of the IACHR, the foregoing does not represent an adequate and effective mechanism as described above, since it does not enable the clearing of title and effective protection of the ancestral territory of the Garifuna Community of Punta Piedra, without taking into account their particular profile, their economic and social characteristics, as well as their customary law, values, practices and customs. Based on the legal precedents cited above, the IACHR deems as insufficient the creation of “commissions,” which due to their very nature are temporary entities, lacking any authority clearly established by law, and which do not contribute to legal certainty of territorial rights of indigenous and tribal peoples. This being so, in light of the refusal of the peasants of Rio Miel to abandon the area in exchange for payment for the improvements made by them, the Punta Piedra Community had no effective remedy to recover its ancestral territory, which took into account particular aspects of indigenous peoples, such as the special significance that the lands hold for them. On this score, it must be recalled that in the cases referred to the Inter-American Court against Paraguay, said Court specifically identified as one of the “structural problems” of the administrative procedure for claims to traditional indigenous 125 lands “subjecting [it] […] to the existence of a voluntary agreement between the parties.” 120. The IACHR notes that the lack of a mechanism to protect and clear title to the Garifuna lands, due to the ineffectiveness of the actions of the State after nearly twenty years from the time of the first intrusions into Rio Miel, generated the exacerbation of the situation. This is evident, in other ways as well, in that the failure to comply with the first commitment entered into on December 13, 2001 and payment of the amount assessed for the improvements to the land, contributed to generating a climate of increased tension and violence, bolstering the peasants’ resistance to abandoning the area, and to raising the amount to be paid for the improvements made. 121. On a separate matter, the IACHR has deemed proven the existence of a permanent conflict situation caused by third parties interested in the ancestral lands of the Community, characterized by constant threats, harassment, and violent actions. It is a credited fact that this situation was known by the State of Honduras, as shown in the “Commitment Agreement” of December 13, 2001, executed by state authorities, which states that “from that point in time [referring to the arrival of the first peasants in 125 IA Court of HR. Case of the Yakye Axa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay. Merits, Reparation and Costs. Judgment June 17, 2005. Series C No. 125, par. 97; Case of the Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment March 29, 2006. Series C No. 146, par. 104; and Case of the Xákmok Kásek. Indigenous Community v. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment August 24, 2010 Series C No. 214, pars. 151-152.