6 16. Regarding the delimitation, demarcation and titling of the lands that correspond to the members of the Awas Tingni Community (fourth operative paragraph of the Judgment), on November 18, 2003, the State reported that, together with the representatives of the victims, it had agreed to submit this procedure to the mechanism established in Act No. 445. It also undertook to prioritize and expedite the demarcation process of the area claimed. 17. That the State, in a brief of November 18, 2003, advised that it had taken the necessary organizational, contractual and financial measures for the Community to conduct the diagnosis stipulated in Act No. 445. It indicated that it had financed the preparation of this study for the Community by providing the sum of US$75,000.00 (seventy-five thousand United States dollars). In this regard, it affirmed that, on October 27, 2003, the consultancy firm that had been hired presented the “Final Report on the diagnosis on ownership and use of the land of the Mayagna Awas Tingni Community” and that, following its submission, the National Demarcation and Titling Commission (CONADETI) and the Intersectoral Demarcation and Titling Commission (CIDT) were created. The State also indicated that on November 11, 2003, the members of the Community submitted the application for delimitation, demarcation and titling as required by Act No. 445. It then mentioned that, since another group of communities settled in the zone (the Tasba Raya communities) also claimed ownership of the communal lands, the delimitation application of the Awas Tingni Community was transferred to the “dispute settlement stage” established in the Act. This border dispute was resolved by a resolution of the Regional Council of the North Atlantic Autonomous Region (CRAAN) of February 14, 2007. 18. That, on June 4, 2004, the State also advised that in 2003 and 2004, it had held various meetings with the representatives of the Community, during which it made a proposal regarding a site and area of land, which was rejected by the representatives, because they affirmed that “this proposal ignored the criteria of customary law, values, uses and customs,” as well as those indicated in the Court’s Judgment. 19. That, on August 5, 2005, the State indicated that its “political will to guarantee the human rights of the indigenous communities of Nicaragua […] had been amply demonstrated by the titling, under the mechanisms established in Act No. 445, of five indigenous territories situated in the Bosawas Biosphere Reserve, which had benefitted 87 Mayagna and Miskita communities.” It also affirmed that these procedures were not easy and that “a long process of dialogue and negotiation between the Government of Nicaragua, the Regional Council of the North Atlantic Autonomous Region (CRAAN), the National Demarcation and Titling Commission and the representatives of each territory involved was required […].” The State also affirmed that it “had made many efforts, providing support and technical and logistic assistance to the Demarcation Commission of the North Atlantic Autonomous Region (RAAN) and the National Demarcation and Titling Commission, in order to resolve aspects that would facilitate and permit the prompt titling for the Awas Tingni indigenous community”. 20. That, during the private hearing held on May 3, 2008, the State advised that it had been making a continuous effort to be able to title the lands of the members of the Awas Tingni Community and the other communities that benefitted from the Act. Among the measures adopted in relation to the fourth operative paragraph of the Judgment, it mentioned the importance of the resolution issued by the Regional Council of the North Atlantic Autonomous Region (CRAAN) on February 14, 2007, resolving the border dispute between the Awas Tingni Community and the Tasba Ray