41 the same, in detriment of the Community and its members, due to the State’s failure to guarantee free access to or delimit, demarcate, and title parts of the beach and sea, it is relevant to recall that States must guarantee the use, enjoyment, and usage under equal conditions and without discrimination of the beaches and coastal seas, as well as other resources traditionally used, pursuant to their uses and customs. B.4. The alleged lack of protection of the Community’s territory with regard to third parties 138. Regarding the arguments related to the presumed lack of protection of the territory of the Community of Triunfo de la Cruz regarding third parties, the Court reiterates that since the year 1982 the State was in the obligation to guarantee the use and enjoyment of the territories where the indigenous communities were settled (supra para. 119), and that as of the year 1996, the State had an international obligation to guarantee the use and enjoyment of the territory of indigenous communities by virtue of that stated in Convention 169 of the ILO (supra para. 119). 139. The representatives and the Commission have referred to several sales or overlapping of property deeds related to the territories object of this controversy. Consequently, there are problems with the following title deeds: a) the sale of 50 hectares of land to the company MACERICA in the year 1969; b) the sale of approximately 44 hectares to the company IDETRISA in the year 1993, and c) the transfer of 22 blocks to the workers’ union of the Municipality of Tela. 140. With regard to these three areas, it is important to mention that they are all located in plot A1 (infra Map Annex), which was acknowledged by the INA as traditional territory of the Community of Triunfo de la Cruz in the year 2001 (supra para. 115). B.4.1. The sale of 50 hectares160 of land to the company MACERICA in the year 1969 141. It can be concluded from the body of evidence that on July 6, 1969 the company MACERICA acquired a property of around 50 hectares located in the area named “Río Plátano”. It can be concluded from the facts that, in June 1969, members of the Community of Triunfo de la Cruz requested protection from the INA against acts of eviction from the property that had been acquired by the commercial corporation MACERICA. Subsequently, the Director of the INA adopted Agreement No. 14 of May 7, 1970, though which it decided to protect the members of the Community in the occupation exercised by them over the property, as well as “grant equal protection to the other peasants that occupy the land in question” (supra para. 63). 142. On the other hand, on September 28, 1979, the INA issued in favor of the Community a title in “guarantee of occupation” over 126.40 hectares, located on the Eastern extreme of the lands previously granted as communal lands (supra para. 59). That area of 126.40 hectares overlaps in part with the area where the company MACERICA was located. It can be concluded from this that upon acknowledging the title deed in guarantee of occupation, the State acquired the obligation to ensure the effective use and enjoyment of that property. That obligation cannot be ignored, and the enjoyment cannot be obviated because a private property title has been granted in those lands. 161 In the year 1995 the area was remeasured, indicating that it corresponded to 56.76 hectares, and that the difference of 5.39 hectares was due to a natural mudslide that increased the area, (evidence file, folios 8813 and 8814). 160 Cfr. Case of the Kuna indigenous people of Madungandí and the Emberá people of Bayano and their members v. Panama, para. 142. 161