21 86. The legal precedents of the Inter-American system have consistently recognized indigenous peoples’ property right to their ancestral territories, and the duty to protect emanating from Article 21 of the American Convention. In this context, the IACHR has asserted that indigenous and tribal peoples have a communal property right to the lands that they have traditionally used and occupied and 85 that “the character of these rights is a function of customary land use patterns and tenure.” Similarly, the Inter-American Court has held that “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 on an individual but 86 rather on the group and its community.” 87. In addition to the collective concept of property, indigenous peoples have a special, unique and internationally protected relationship with their ancestral territories, which is non-existent in the case of non-indigenous people. This special and unique relationship between indigenous peoples and their traditional territories is internationally protected. As affirmed by the IACHR and the Inter-American Court, the preservation of the special connection between indigenous communities and their lands and resources is linked to the very existence of these peoples and, therefore, “warrants special measures of 87 protection.” The right to property of indigenous and tribal peoples protects this close tie that they have with their territories and with the natural resources associated with their culture that are located on 88 them. 88. The protection of property rights, fair trial and judicial protection rights is reinforced by the general obligation to respect human rights, as provided for in Article 1.1 of the Convention. Likewise, Article 2 of the American Convention establishes that where the exercise of the rights or freedoms referred to in Article 1 is not already ensured by legislative or other provisions, the States parties undertake to adopt, in accordance with their constitutional processes and the provisions of the Convention, such legislative or other measures as may be necessary to give effect to those rights or 89 freedoms. 89. Additionally, both the IACHR and the Inter-American Court have established that indigenous peoples, as collective subjects who are separate and distinct from their individual members, are entitled to rights recognized by the American Convention. In this connection, in the judgment of the Case of the Kichwa de Sarayaku Indigenous People v. Ecuador, the Inter-American Court stated that “international standards regarding indigenous peoples and communities recognizes the right of peoples 85 IACHR, Report No. 40/04, Case 12.053, Mayan Indigenous Communities of the Toledo District (Belice), October 12, 2004, par. 151. See inter alia IACHR, Report No. 75/02, Case 11.140, Mary and Carrie Dann (United States), December 27, 2002, par. 130; and IACHR, Follow-up Report– Access to Justice and Social Inclusion: The road toward strengthening democracy in Bolivia. Doc. OEA/Ser/L/V/II.135, Doc. 40, August 7, 2009, par. 160. 86 IA Court of HR, Case of the Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community v. Nicaragua. Judgment August 31, 2001. Series C No. 79. par. 149. Case of the Yakye Axa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay. Merits Reparations and Costs. Judgment June 17, 2005. Series C No. 125, par. 131; Case of the Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment March, 2006. Series C No. 146. par. 118; Case of the Xákmok Kásek Indigenous Community v. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment August 24, 2010 Series C No. 214, pars. 85-87; Case of the Saramaka People v. Suriname. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment November 28, 2007. Series C No. 172, par. 85; Case of the Kichwa de Sarayaku Indigenous Community v. Ecuador. Merits and Reparations. Judgment June 27, 2012. Series C No. 245, par. 145. 87 IACHR, Report No. 75/02, Case 11.140, Mary and Carrie Dann (United States), December 27, 2002, par. 128; IA Court of HR, Case of the Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community v. Nicaragua. Judgment August 31, 2001. Series C No. 79. par. 149. Also see IA Court of HR, Case of the Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment March 29, 2006. Series C No. 146, par. 222. 88 IACHR, Follow-up Report – Access to Justice and Social Inclusion: The Road toward Strengthening Democracy in Bolivia. Doc. OEA/Ser/L/V/II.135, Doc. 40, August 7, 2009, par. 156. IA Court of HR, Case of the Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community v. Nicaragua. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment August 31, 2001. Series C No. 79, par. 148. IA Court of HR, Case of the Yakye Axa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment July 17, 2005. Series C No. 125, par. 137. IA Court of HR, Case of the Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment March 29, 2006. Series C No. 146, pars. 118, 121. 89 IACHR, Rights of Indigenous and Tribal Peoples to their Ancestral Lands and Natural Resourcs. Norms and Jurisprudence of the Inter-American Human Rights System. OEA/Ser.L/V/II.Doc.56/09, December 30, 2009, par. 43.