60 ñ) the granting of the concession to SOLCARSA and omission by the State in not adopting measures to ensure the rights of the Awas Tingni Community to its land and natural resources, according to their traditional patterns of use and occupation, were breaches of articles 1 and 2 of the Convention. Arguments of the State 105. Regarding article 25 of the Convention, the State, in turn, alleged that: a) it cannot be established that there has been legislative procrastination in Nicaraguan law that has hindered claiming a right recognized by the Constitution. There is a legal framework to carry out the process of land titling for indigenous communities in the country, through the Nicaraguan Agrarian Reform Institute (INRA), which was ignored by the Community. This juridical framework was established by Law No. 14, “Amendment to the Agrarian Reform Law”, on January 11, 1986. The State has granted title deed to 28 indigenous communities under this law. There is no request for title deed submitted by the community in the files of INRA; b) there has been no denial of recognition of a right in connection with which there have simply been no requests made to the national authorities. The Awas Tingni Indigenous Community never filed a formal request for land titling before the courts. The Supreme Court of Justice cannot be blamed for not having provided a legal remedy which was never requested. The claims of the Community were all related to their objection to the logging concession granted to SOLCARSA; c) the Community submitted an ambiguous and obscure request to the Regional Council of the RAAN for it to help fill a normative gap which allegedly existed in this matter. With that, the Community sought to disregard the indigenous land titling procedures, in addition to creating confusion or conflict of jurisdictions between the authorities of the Central Government and of the Regional Governments in the Atlantic Coast; d) on November 7, 1997 the Community filed an amparo remedy before the Supreme Court of Justice arguing the responsibility of the State for administrative procrastination caused by lack of a decision by the Regional Council of the RAAN, diverting attention from the fundamental issue, arguing that the Community had not submitted any request for titling of its alleged ancestral lands before the competent authorities, which is equivalent to lack of procedural claim; e) the Community has disregarded domestic procedures under Nicaraguan law, it claims lands which are not ancestral, and through the mechanism of international judicial pressure it seeks to set aside the interests of third parties in the area; f) the Awas Tingni Community exercised its right to request land titling in a deficient manner, considering that it was doing so when it objected to the logging concession granted on lands that they claim: 1. When the administrative procedure to grant the logging concession had not yet been completed and the authorities of MARENA advised the public on May 17, 18, and 19, 1995 of that circumstance, for third