different community radio stations. It also pointed out that, since the alleged victims in this case correspond to the aforementioned indigenous peoples, “the reference to other community radio stations operated by these peoples, insofar as they are related to the facts of the case, does not constitute an inclusion of new victims […], as indicated by the State.” 18. The representatives stated that, since the petition was submitted to the InterAmerican Commission, the alleged victims have been identified as indigenous communities and reference has been made to their radio stations. They also indicated that, between 2012 and 2019, they updated the Commission on new facts, especially those related to the raids on indigenous community radio stations carried out by state authorities. They emphasized that, when the case was submitted to the Court, due to the nature of the relationship between the indigenous communities and their radio stations, 16 they deemed it necessary to obtain powers of attorney from the ancestral authorities of the indigenous communities, as well as from their respective community radio stations. However, they pointed out that, due to: i) only two of the four indigenous communities originally named as alleged victims still having functioning community radio stations, and ii) difficulties in obtaining power of attorney letters from those communities, the representatives “decided to include other indigenous communities as [alleged] named victims.” They argued that the communities included “had previously contributed to the case while it was before the Commission and are well known to the representatives […].” They indicated that the addition of these indigenous communities was aimed at ensuring that “the extent and impact of human rights violations in Guatemala could presented to the Court.” B. Considerations of the Court 19. The Court confirms that, in Merits Report No. 164/19, the Commission considered the following indigenous communities as victims: the Maya Kaqchikel of Sumpango, in Sacatepéquez; the Maya Achí of San Miguel Chicaj, in Baja Verapaz; the Maya Mam of Cajolá, in Quetzaltenango; and the Maya Mam of Todos Santos Cuchumatán, in Huehuetenango. 20. For their part, in their pleadings and motions brief, the representatives added six different indigenous communities, in addition to the ones originally indicated, namely: (1) the Maya Q’eqchi’ of El Estor, Izabal (Radio Xyaab’ Tzultaq’a); (2) the Maya Q’eqchi,’ of Arroyo de Leche, Cobán (Radio Nimlajacoc); (3) the Maya Mam, of San ldelfonso, lxtahuacán (Radio Nan Pix); (4) Los Encuentros, Sololá (Radio Juventud); (5) the Maya Q'anjob'al, of Santa Eulalia, Huehuetenango (Radio Jolón Konob), and (6) the Maya K’iche’, of Totonicapán, Totonicapán (Radio La Nina). 21. In view of the foregoing, the Court considers that the alleged victims in this case are the indigenous communities that operated or operate community radio stations – not the radio stations themselves, as alleged by the State - and that these communities are the holders of the rights that are alleged to have been violated in the instant case. 17 The representatives emphasized that the “fundamental characteristic [of community radio] is the participation of the community in ownership as well as programming, management, operation, financing and evaluation […] and [they] exist to satisfy the communication needs of their communities’ members and to enable them to exercise their rights of access to information and freedom of expression.” World Association of Community Radio Broadcasters (AMARC). Principles for a Democratic Legislation on Community Broadcasting, principles 3 and 4. Available at: https://www.amarcmexico.org/pdf/international/01-Principles.pdf. 17 The Court recalls that, according to its case law, indigenous communities are holders of collective rights protected by the American Convention, “[given that] indigenous and tribal peoples and communities, unified by their particular way of life and identity, exercise some of the rights recognized in the Convention collectively” Cf. Entitlement of Legal Entities to Hold Rights under the Inter-American Human Rights System (Interpretation and scope of Article 1(2), in relation to Articles 1(2), 8, 11(2), 13, 16, 21, 24, 25, 29, 30, 44, 46 And 62(3) of the American Convention on Human Rights, as well as of Article 8(1)(A) And (B) of the Protocol of San Salvador). Advisory Opinion OC-22/16 16 -7-