4 Community leaders,” representatives, thus Community.” and “without the presence of their legal limiting the effective participation of the (d) Regarding the investigation into the reported facts and the eventual punishment of those responsible, that: i. The Asociación de Excombatientes de la Resistencia Indígena de Desarrollo (ARID) “has been the subject of constant complaints [by the Community] since April 2002, when the process of execution of the judgment started, and more than three years elapsed […] before an investigation into the facts”; ii. The State has not punished anyone who was responsible for the illegal felling of trees, or taken any measures regarding the murder of Octavio Henry, a member of the Community, in July 2004. Furthermore, it has not investigated the death threats and the physical violence against members of the Community, despite repeated complaints; and iii. “The only result of the investigation conducted after the statutory time limit had passed” was the administrative punishment of Community members for the “illegal felling of trees on land occupied by the Awas [T]igni Community.” The administrative decision was subsequently annulled. 5. The observations presented by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Inter-American Commission” or “the Commission”) on January 31, May 20 and November 17, 2003, July 12, 2004, February 2, April 20 and September 21, 2005, and July 5, 2006, in which it indicated, inter alia: (a) Regarding the measures to protect the use and enjoyment of the property of the Community, that: i. The non-concession of forestry permits in the areas claimed “does not imply compliance by the State […] with the Court’s Order [for provisional measures].” The State “must take positive steps to prevent […] the illegal tree felling that has been reported by the victims’ representatives”; and ii. The progress regarding the measures ordered has been tardy and insufficient. (b) Regarding the provisional agreement on the use, occupation and exploitation of the property, it was concerned that the State “had not […] extended the Community Forestry Exploitation Agreement […]. Consequently, [the State] was failing to implement the fourth operative paragraph of the judgment […].” (c) Regarding the investigation into the reported facts and the eventual punishment of those responsible: i. It recognized the effort that the State had made by opening administrative proceedings against the Asociación de Excombatientes de la Resistencia Indígena de Desarrollo (ARID) and confiscating the wood from the trees that had been felled