3 parties and have helped facilitate the process of titling the land in favor of the members of the Community. (d) Regarding the investigation into the reported facts and the eventual punishment of those responsible, that: i. It had formally opened administrative proceedings against the Asociación de Excombatientes de la Resistencia Indígena de Desarrollo (ARID). In addition, the authorities had proceeded to confiscate the wood that had been cut illegally; and ii. It had created a mechanism to process and pay priority attention to the requirements of the members of the Community. 4. The observations forwarded by the representatives of the beneficiaries (hereinafter “the representatives”) of January 30, March 3, April 25 and November 14, 2003, May 3, July 12, October 26 and November 17, 2004, January 15, March 31, September 2 and November 4, 2005, and June 19 and April 26, 2007, in which they indicated, inter alia: (a) Regarding the measures to protect the use and enjoyment of the property of the members of the Community, that: i. “[…T]he State’s responsibility […] is not exhausted by the actions of the institutions of the central Government, nor does the granting of forestry exploitation permits exhaust the forms of tacit or express consent to the illegal activities that are being carried out […] on the Community’s territory.” The Community has reported incursions onto its territory by third parties without its authorization; one of these cases relates to “a mestizo tenant farmer [having] sold around 10,000 hectares in the region of Wakambay to 20 mestizo families”; ii. As required by Act No. 445, they had presented a request for the delimitation, demarcation and titling of their land on November 11, 2003; and iii. The existence of other indigenous communities in adjoining areas who are making claims over ancestral lands has never been denied. However, the State’s allegation that there are “overlapping areas” does not excuse the failure to grant title to the Awas Tigni Community. (b) Regarding the provisional agreement on the rights of use, occupation and exploitation of the property: that the Community was unable to exploit the forestry resources owing “to the need to fulfill onerous requirements imposed by the Nicaraguan authorities and the inaction of these authorities, which prevented the start-up of forestry exploitation work.” The Forestry Exploitation Agreement expired in June 2004, before forestry exploitation activities had started and the exploitation rights were transferred to Amerinica Exotic Woods S.A. (c) Regarding the participation of the beneficiaries in the implementation of the measures ordered by the Court: that, although several meetings had been held with the State authorities, they had been held “outside the formal negotiating channels for implementation of the judgment of the Inter-American Court, in a context of pressure on the