61 parties to have the opportunity to object, the Community abstained from raising any objection to that concession, thus turning it into a consensual act. 2. Once the logging concession had been granted to the SOLCARSA corporation, the Community did not resort to the amparo remedy within the term established by law. Through this grave omission, absolutely imputable to the applicant party, they lost the possibility of a judicial review of the administrative decisions pertaining to the concession. 3. In a negligent manner, the Community disputed the judicial decision which denied the amparo remedy mentioned in the previous point, by filing another amparo remedy appealing for review of facts as well as law, in which it did not request suspension of the administrative act which granted the concession. However, the Supreme Court of Justice had to restrict its ruling strictly to the question posed by the applicant (principle of strict right in the review). 4. While the judgment on the remedy appealing for review of facts as well as law was still pending, the Community did not object to the logging concession through a remedy of unconstitutionality, when it had the opportunity to do so. This is another expression of their negligent exercise of their right to petition. The Community had to depend on the action of a third party to obtain what it was incapable of obtaining. The obligation to exhaust all domestic remedies falls exclusively on the applicants, who cannot excuse themselves from their procedural obligation due to remedies filed by third parties; 5. Regarding the request for annulment of the logging concession granted to SOLCARSA, the Nicaraguan judicial system was effective in providing the judicial remedy requested, as that concession was declared null. Those who were not effective were the advisors to the Awas Tingni Community who did not file any remedy of unconstitutionality against that concession, as was done by some members of the Regional Council of the RAAN. Regarding the alleged delay in the enforcement of the judgment that declared the concession to be null, it must be taken into account that the State requested that SOLCARSA suspend the concession shortly after that judgment was issued. Furthermore, the significance of this issue is not clear, as the remedy which led to that judgment was filed by a third party, alleging unconstitutionality of a concession granted in areas which Awas Tingni claims without having demonstrated ancestrality nor property rights; g) the right of Awas Tingni to titling of the non-ancestral lands that it occupies would be subject to a decision by the State, after having consulted with that Community; h) the Commission has said that Nicaragua uses the excuse that it has not given title deed to the Awas Tingni Community because the territorial claim submitted by the latter is complex. However, there has been no decision on that claim because Awas Tingni has not proven that it has the necessary requirements to substantiate it, specifically that of ancestral occupation of the ancestral lands; and