52 1. The territorial rights of indigenous peoples in the inter-American human rights system 192. The case-law of the inter-American human rights system has repeatedly recognized indigenous peoples’ property rights over their ancestral territories, and the duty of protection that emanates from Article 21 of the American Convention and Article XXIII of the American Declaration, interpreted in light of the provisions of the International Labour Organization (ILO) Convention No. 169, the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, the Draft American Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and other relevant sources, all of which compose a coherent corpus iuris that defines the obligations of OAS Member States with regard to the protection of indigenous property 280 rights. In this respect, the IACHR has stated that indigenous and tribal peoples have a communal property right over the lands they have used and occupied traditionally, “and that the character of these 281 rights is a function of … customary land use patterns and tenure.” Along these same lines, the InterAmerican Court has indicated: “Among indigenous peoples there is a communitarian tradition regarding a communal form of collective property of the land, in the sense that ownership of the land is not centered 282 on an individual but rather on the group and its community.” 193. In addition to their collective conception of property rights, the indigenous peoples have a special, unique, and internationally protected relationship with their ancestral territories, which is absent in the case of non-indigenous communities. This special and unique relationship between indigenous peoples and their traditional territories enjoys international legal protection. As the IACHR and the InterAmerican Court have argued, preserving the particular connection between the indigenous communities and their lands and resources is bound up with the very existence of these peoples, and therefore 283 “warrants special measures of protection.” The right to property of indigenous and tribal peoples protects this close tie they maintain with their territories and with the natural resources linked to their 284 culture that are found there. 280 See inter alia IACHR, Report No. 75/02, Case 11,140, Mary and Carrie Dann (United States), December 27, 2002, para. 127; IACHR, Report No. 40/04, Case 12,053, Maya Indigenous Communities of Toledo District v. Belize, October 12, 2004, para. 87; IACHR, Indigenous and Tribal Peoples’ Rights over their Ancestral Lands and Natural Resources. Norms and Jurisprudence of the Inter-American Human Rights System. OEA/Ser.L/V/II.Doc.56/09, December 30, 2009, para.6; I/A Court H.R. Case of the Yakye Axa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 17, 2005. Series C No. 125, para. 127-129. 281 IACHR, Report No. 40/04, Case 12,053, Maya Indigenous Communities of Toledo District v. Belize, October 12, 2004, para. 151. See inter alia IACHR, Report No. 75/02, Case 11,140, Mary and Carrie Dann (United States), December 27, 2002, para. 130; IACHR, Follow-up Report to the Report on Access to Justice and Social Inclusion: The Road towards Strengthening Democracy in Bolivia. Doc. OEA/Ser/L/V/II.135, Doc. 40, August 7, 2009, para. 160. IACHR, Indigenous and Tribal Peoples’ Rights over their Ancestral Lands and Natural Resources. Norms and Jurisprudence of the Inter-American Human Rights System. OEA/Ser.L/V/II.Doc.56/09, December 30, 2009, para. 75. 282 I/A Court H.R. Case of the Awas Tingni Mayagna (Sumo) Community v. Nicaragua. Judgment of August 31, 2001. Series C No. 79. para. 149. Case of the Yakye Axa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 17, 2005. Series C No. 125, para. 131; Case of the Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of March 29, 2006. Series C No. 146. para. 118; Case of the Xákmok Kásek Indigenous Community v. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 24, 2010 Series C No. 214, paras. 85-87; Case of the Saramaka People v. Suriname. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 28, 2007. Series C No. 172, para. 85; Case of Kichwa Indigenous People of Sarayaku v. Ecuador. Merits and Reparations. Judgment of June 27, 2012. Series C No. 245, para. 145. 283 IACHR, Report No. 75/02, Case 11,140, Mary and Carrie Dann v. United States, December 27, 2002, para. 128. I/A Court H.R., Case of the Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community. Judgment of August 31, 2001. Series C No. 79. Para. 149. See also: I/A Court H.R., Case of the Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community. Judgment of March 29, 2006. Series C No. 146, para. 222. 284 IACHR, Follow-up Report to the Report on Access to Justice and Social Inclusion: The Road towards Strengthening Democracy in Bolivia. Doc. OEA/Ser/L/V/II.135, Doc. 40, August 7, 2009, para. 156. I/A Court H.R.. Case of the Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community v. Nicaragua. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 31, 2001. Series C No. 79, para. 148. I/A Court H.R.. Case of the Yakye Axa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 17, 2005. Series C No. 125, para. 137. I/A Court H.R.. Case of Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of March 29, 2006. Series C No. 146, paras. 118, 121.