detriment and, as a result, when ordering the return of the 10,700 hectares claimed 5 together with other measures in their favor. 6 B. Inter-American legal doctrine 7 5. This perspective seems to be shared by inter-American legal doctrine, as revealed by the 1997 draft American Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, prepared by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, 8 which indicates that: "Indigenous peoples have the collective rights that are essential for the enjoyment of the individual human rights of their members." 9 6. In addition, the 1998 comments on this draft by the Inter-American Juridical Committee 10 follow the same approach when indicating that: “International law in the field of human rights protects, with few exceptions, individual rights, while recognizing that, in certain cases, the exercise of individual rights can only be truly exercised collectively." II. RIGHTS OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLES A. Possible new perspective. 7. However, it is also true that the ICourtHR, in this same judgment, has referred to the Xákmok Kásek Community as the subject claiming rights, particularly with regard to the right to territory 11 with the “communal ownership” that corresponds to it. 12 In addition, it also expressly mentioned the Community, as the beneficiary of the measures ordered, 13 even though, in some of those measures, it refers to the grounds for its decision where, to the contrary, it refers to the members of the collectivity, 14 and in others, it refers interchangeably, to them and to the Community. 15 5 Operative paragraph 12. 6 Operative paragraphs 13, 15, 19, and 23, even though, in these operative paragraphs, the direct reference is made to “the Community”; however, when relating this to considering paragraphs 291, 294, 295 and 301, and operative paragraph 12, respectively, it should be understood that this reference is made indirectly to “the members of the Community.” 7 Even though, under this subtitle, reference is made to the decisions of two organs of an international organization, the OAS, so that it could be considered that they are expressions of the auxiliary source of international law, the so-called “Decisions of international organizations declaring legal rights,” they are, however, cataloged as legal doctrine, another auxiliary source of international law, considering that one is a proposed Declaration, which has not yet been adopted by the corresponding parties, and the other contains observations on the former and, in both cases, they are issued by advisory organs of the said international organization. 8 AG/RES.1479 (XXVII-O/97). 9 Article II(2). First phrase. 10 OEA/Ser.Q CJI/doc.29/98 rev.2 11 E.g.: paragraphs 64 et seq. and 80 et seq. 12 E.g.: paragraph 85 et seq. 13 Operative paragraphs 13 to 15, 23, 25, and 26. 14 See supra note 6 in relation to operative paragraphs 13, 15, and 23. 15 Operative paragraphs 25 and 26. 2