164. The Court will analyze these disputes in the following chapters: (a) the right to
collective indigenous and tribal property; (b) the guarantee of the use and enjoyment
of collective property and the failure to free the Garifuna territory of encumbrances;
(c) Honduran property ownership regulations, and (d) the obligation to ensure the
right to consultation and cultural identity.
B.1 The right to collective indigenous and tribal property
165. The Court recalls its case law in this matter in the sense that Article 21 of the
American Convention protects the close relationship that indigenous peoples have with
their lands, as well as with the natural resources and the intangible elements derived
from them. Indigenous peoples have a community-based tradition of the collective
ownership of the land; thus, land is not owned by the individual but by the group and
its community. 199 These notions of land ownership and possession do not necessarily
conform to the classic concept of ownership, but the Court has established that they
deserve equal protection under Article 21 of the American Convention. Ignoring the
specific forms of the right to use and enjoyment of property based on the culture,
practices, customs and beliefs of each people, would be tantamount to maintaining
that there is only one way to use and dispose of property, which, in turn, would render
protection under this provision illusory for millions of people. 200
166. The Court has taken into account that indigenous groups, by the fact of their
very existence, have the right to live freely in their own territory; the close ties of
indigenous people with the land must be recognized and understood as the
fundamental basis of their cultures, their spiritual life, their integrity, and their
economic survival. For indigenous communities, the relationship with the land is not
merely a matter of possession and production but a material and spiritual element that
they should enjoy fully, even to preserve their cultural legacy and transmit it to future
generations. 201 “The culture of the members of indigenous communities directly relates
to a specific way of being, seeing, and acting in the world, developed on the basis of
their close relationship with their traditional territories and the resources therein, not
only because these are their main means of subsistence, but also because they are
part of their worldview, their religiosity, and therefore, their cultural identity”; 202
consequently, the protection and guarantee of the right [to the use and enjoyment of
their territory] is necessary to ensure [not only] their survival,” 203 but also their
development and evolution as a people.
199
Cf. 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, and Case of the Kuna Indigenous People of
Madungandí and the Emberá Indigenous People of Bayano and their Members v. Panama. Preliminary
objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of October 14, 2014. Series C No. 284, para. 111.
200
Cf. Case of the Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay. Merits, reparations and costs.
Judgment of March 29, 2006. Series C No. 146, para. 120, and Case of the Kuna Indigenous People of
Madungandí and the Emberá Indigenous People of Bayano and their Members, supra, para. 111.
201
Cf. Case of the Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community, supra, para. 149 and Case of the Xákmok
Kásek Indigenous Community v. Paraguay. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 24, 2010.
Series C No. 214, para. 86.
202
Case of the Yakye Axa Indigenous Community, supra, para. 135, and Case of the Kuna Indigenous
People of Madungandí and the Emberá Indigenous People of Bayano and their Members, supra, para. 112.
203
Cf. Case of the Yakye Axa Indigenous Community, supra, paras. 124, 135 and 137 and Case of the
Kuna Indigenous People of Madungandí and the Emberá Indigenous People of Bayano and their members,
supra, para. 112.
49