72 278. In addition to the actions undertaken for recognition of its ancestral lands, from the facts deemed to be proven, the IACHR notes that the Community began two administrative proceedings to achieve recovery of the 22 manzanas granted by the Municipality to its Trade Union. As the IACHR has ascertained with respect to the expropriation proceedings initiated with the INA on January 7, 2002, according to the State, that Institute issued an expropriation resolution on December 7, 2007, that is to say almost 6 years later. In the IACHR’s opinion, that such a length of time is clearly unwarranted for proceedings of that nature. Likewise, in order to recover the 22 manzanas the Community filed an action for annulment of the corresponding decision with the Municipality. The IACHR notes that only four years after the claim was presented did the Office of the Attorney General of the Republic issue an opinion in favor of annulment and that, despite that, according to information at the IACHR’s disposal, 10 years after the process began no decision putting an end to the process had been issued. 279. In light of Articles 25 and 8.1 of the Convention and of the provisions of ILO Convention No. 169, the IACHR considers that the Honduran State did not comply with the obligation to provide the Triunfo de la Cruz Community with a remedy taking into account its particular nature, its economic and social characteristics, its customary law, values, habits, and customs, and which in turn would be effective in solving its territorial claim, while guaranteeing the Community’s right to be heard with due guarantees and keeping to a reasonable schedule for guaranteeing its rights and obligations. Therefore, the Commission concludes that the State violated Articles 25 and 8 of the American Convention to the detriment of the Community of Triunfo de la Cruz and its members, in conjunction with Articles 1.1 and 2 thereof. 2. Proceedings regarding criminal complaints lodged by the Community of Triunfo de la Cruz and its members 280. The Inter-American Court has established that anyone who has suffered a violation of his or her human rights has the right “to obtain clarification of the events that violated human rights and the corresponding responsibilities from the competent organs of the State, through the investigation and 360 prosecution that are established in Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention.” The protection of these rights is reinforced by the general obligation to respect and guarantee them, established in Article 1.1 of the American Convention. On that, the Inter-American Court has established that: Article 25 in relation to Article 1(1) of the American Convention obliges the State to guarantee to every individual access to the administration of justice and, in particular, to simple and prompt recourse, so that, inter alia, those responsible for human rights violations may be prosecuted and reparations obtained for the damages suffered… Article 25 “is one of the fundamental pillars not only of the American Convention, but of the very rule of law in a democratic society…” That article is closely linked to Article 8(1), which provides that every person has the right to a hearing, with due guarantees and within a reasonable time, by a competent, independent, and impartial tribunal, for 361 the determination of his rights, whatever their nature. 281. The Inter-American Court has interpreted Article 25 as guaranteeing a simple and prompt recourse for the protection of rights, but also an effective recourse for protecting individuals from acts of 362 the State that violate their fundamental rights. For that reason, the right to judicial protection is considered to be an extremely important right since it becomes a fundamental mechanism for exercising the defense of any other right that has been violated by bringing appropriate actions or remedies before the competent judicial authority. 360 I/A Court H.R., Case of Barrios Altos v. Peru. Judgment of March 14, 2001. Series C No. 75, paragraph 48. 361 I/A Court H.R., Case of Loayza Tamayo. Reparations. Judgment of November 27, 1998. Series C No. 42, paragraph 169; I/A Court H.R. Velásquez Rodríguez Case. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of June 26, 1987. Series C No. 1. paragraph 91; I/A Court H.R., Case of Fairén Garbi and Solís Corrales. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of June 26, 1987. Series C No. 2, paragraph 90. 362 I/A Court H.R., Tibi v. Ecuador Case. Judgment of September 7, 2004. Series C No. 114. paragraph 130; “Five Pensioners” Case. Judgment of February 28, 2003. Series C No. 98, paragraph 126.