69 norms, as well as to ensure due application of that remedy by its judicial authorities.53 136. Along these same lines, the Court has expressed that [t]he general duty under article 2 of the American Convention involves adopting protective measures in two directions. On the one hand, suppressing norms and practices of any type that carry with them the violation of guarantees set forth in the convention. On the other hand, issuing norms and developing practices which are conducive to effective respect for such guarantees.54 137. As stated before, in this case Nicaragua has not adopted the adequate domestic legal measures to allow delimitation, demarcation, and titling of indigenous community lands, nor did it process the amparo remedy filed by members of the Awas Tingni Community within a reasonable time. 138. The Court believes it necessary to make the rights recognized by the Nicaraguan Constitution and legislation effective, in accordance with the American Convention. Therefore, pursuant to article 2 of the American Convention, the State must adopt in its domestic law the necessary legislative, administrative, or other measures to create an effective mechanism for delimitation and titling of the property of the members of the Awas Tingni Mayagna Community, in accordance with the customary law, values, customs and mores of that Community. 139. From all the above, the Court concludes that the State violated article 25 of the American Convention, to the detriment of the members of the Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community, in connection with articles 1(1) and 2 of the Convention. IX VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 21 Right to Private Property55 Arguments of the Commission 140. Regarding article 21 of the Convention, the Commission argued that: a) the Mayagna Community has communal property rights to land and natural resources based on traditional patterns of use and occupation of ancestral territory. There rights “exist even without State actions which specify them”. Traditional land tenure is linked to a historical continuity, but not necessarily to a single place and to a single social conformation throughout the centuries. The overall territory of the Community is possessed collectively, and the individuals and families enjoy subsidiary rights of use and occupation; 53 cfr. Villagrán Morales et al. case ( “Street Children” case). Judgment of November 19, 1999. C Series No. 63, para. 237; also see, Ivcher Bronstein case, supra note 9, para. 135; and Cantoral Benavides case, supra note 48, para. 163. 54 cfr. Baena Ricardo et al. case, supra note 9, para. 180; and Cantoral Benavides case, supra note 48, para. 178. 55 There is no substantial variation among the Spanish-, English- Portuguese-, and French-language text for article 21 of the Convention. The only difference is that the epigraph in the English-language text reads “Right to Property” while in the other three languages it reads “Right to Private Property”.