50 VII-2. OBLIGATION TO ADOPT DOMESTIC LEGAL PROVISIONS (Article 2 of the Convention, in relation to Articles 1(1), 21, 8, and 25) A. Arguments of the parties and of the Commission 183. The Commission referred to a “lack of provision of an adequate and effective procedure for the acknowledgment, titling, demarcation, and delimitation of the territories reclaimed by the presumed victims, […] which would guarantee the pacific possession and recovery of their [traditional] territory.”190 It added that “the existence of deficiencies in the legal framework […] has prevented […] the Community […], from protecting the territories historically occupied by it.” Additionally, it added that Honduras’ “agrarian legislation” was based on the use and productive exploitation of the land” and therefore “it is foreign [to the] specific forms of relationship and use of the land, characteristic of the culture, uses, customs, and beliefs [of the Community]”191 and that “[s]aid legal framework does not comprehend the scope of the collective property of the indigenous people and therefore excludes territories, natural resources historically used.”192 Likewise, it made reference to some provisions of the Law on Property of 2004, specifically its Article 100 that “[would] affect the legal certainty of the lands upon not ensuring the non-alienability of communal lands and allowing free disposition by the communities, the establishment of pledges or mortgages or other encumbrances, or their lease.”193 184. The representative argued that “[t]he absence of effective, specific, and regulated procedures for the titling of indigenous communal lands causes general uncertainty.” They also indicated with regard to existing legislation that “even though it acknowledges the communal land regimen of indigenous communities, it includes grave exceptions that restrict this acknowledgment, thus violating international principles, standards, and instruments,” since despite having ratified Convention 169 of the ILO and approved the United Nations’ Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People, Honduras had not “included in its domestic regulations an adaptation as per the mentioned treaties.”194 The representatives referred specifically to several provisions of the Law on Property, which include “exceptions, conditions, and repealing and restrictive provisions”195 and they especially mentioned Article 100 of this The Commission made the mentioned argument regarding an alleged violation of Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention, in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 of the same. Additionally, it argued that the State had violated Article 21 of the Convention, in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 of the same “for not having […] provided [the Community and its members] effective access to a collective property deed over their traditional territory; as well as for having refrained from delimiting, demarcating, and protecting it in an effective manner.” 190 The Commission added that “the Garífuna culture is basically oral and given the interests of third parties in their territories, they were forced to carry out procedures to title their lands and document their rights, thus being required to adapt their oral tradition and follow the existing legal mechanisms to substantiate and document their claims.” 191 It added that “[a]s a result of this” the Community was able to obtain a communal title deed and a title deed in guarantee of occupation “which did not acknowledge their right to property as such, but limited rights to the use and enjoyment of the lands.” 192 The Commission added that “the inclusion of this type of clauses in the communal deed, as well as the application of the regulations that promote the use of indigenous territories for tourism purposes, are not compatible with the effective safety and legal certainty that must characterize the title deed the indigenous people are entitled to.” 193 Similarly, the representatives argued that “the necessary constitutional reform that will grant a higher hierarchy to indigenous matters, with the acknowledgment of a pluricultural nature, the customary law, and their own traditional ways of organization and economic development, but above all and especially the rights to communal property over their territories, has not yet been made.” 194 The representatives mentioned, among others, that the “regularization” referred to in this Law on Property “would only take into consideration aspects of physical possession of those lands and not the historical possession 195