10 reference to the property of its land, the Court considered that those entitled to that right were the members of the indigenous or tribal Community and not the Community itself. Thus, the violation to Article 21 of the American Convention was declared in detriment of the members of the Community,25 who were generally identified, but also referred to simply based on this condition. 26 42. This posture assumed by the Court was in agreement with the idea in force at that time according to which human rights were always only individual rights, even when referring to indigenous or tribal peoples. In this line of ideas, the United Nations Human Rights Committee established, regarding Article 27 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, that: “persons belonging to these minorities [ethnic, religious, or linguistic] shall not be denied the right, in community with the other members of their group, that corresponds to them” and that the mentioned Article “establishes and recognizes a right which is conferred on individuals belonging to minority groups.”27 43. Following this line of reasoning, in previous cases, the Court has ordered -for example- the creation of trusts in a case dealing with tribal peoples, with a Foundation serving as trustee in charge of administrating or distributing reparations for material and unmaterial damages. These reparations were ordered in benefit of certain individuals that were members of the Community, but not in benefit of the Community itself.28 Similarly, the Court has ordered the payment of a specific amount for the concept of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages to the organization of an indigenous Community for its subsequent distribution to the members of the Community, beneficiaries of the compensation.29 25 Cfr. Case of the Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community v. Nicaragua. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of August 31, 2001. Series C No. 79, para. 155; Case of the Moiwana Community v. Suriname. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of June 15, 2005. Series C No. 124, para. 176; Case of the Yakye Axa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of June 17, 2005. Series C No. 125, para. 189, and Case of the Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of March 29, 2006. Series C No. 146, para. 204; Case of the Saramaka People v. Suriname. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 28, 2007. Series C No. 172, para. 189, and Case of the Xákmok Kásek Indigenous Community v. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of August 24, 2010. Series C No. 214, para. 278. 26 Cfr. Case of the Saramaka People v. Suriname. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 28, 2007. Series C No. 172, para. 188: “given the size and geographic diversity of the Saramaka people and, particularly, the collective nature of reparations to be ordered in the present case, the Court does not find it necessary in the instant case to individually name the members of the Saramaka people in order to recognize them as injured party. Nevertheless, the Court observes that the members of the Saramaka people are identifiable in accordance with Saramaka customary law.” 27 United Nations, Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 23, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/21/Rev.l/Add.S, of April 26, 1994, para. 1. 28 Cfr. Case of Aloeboetoe et al. v. Suriname. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 10, 1993. Series C No. 15, paras. 100 to 108. 29 Cfr. Case of Yatama v. Nicaragua. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of June 23, 2005. Series C No. 127, para. 248.