CONCURRING OPINION OF JUDGE A.A. CANÇADO TRINDADE 1. I have concurred with the adoption of this Judgment which has been recently rendered by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in the Case of the Indigenous Community Yakye Axa v. Paraguay, wherein the Court asserts the obligations of the respondent State with the Yakye Axa Community regarding “the definite transfer of the traditional territories to the Yakye Axa Community” (para. 34). I basically agree with the decision adopted by the Court and I highlight its consideration in that the possession of their traditional territories is “permanently” marked in the “ancestral memory” of the members of said Community, who have adopted “an identity of their own related” to their traditional territorie; furthermore, “such ancestral memory and identity of their own should be particularly considered when identifying the territory to be given “ (para. 23). Regarding such consideration, in this Opinion I feel obliged to express my personal line of reasoning as the basis of my position. 2. Firstly, I must stress the relevance which, in circumstances such as those of the Case of the Yakye Axa Community, I ascribe to the definite transfer of the lands to the members of such Community. The Court has determined in the exercise of a power which is inherent thereto and pursuant to the provisions of Article 63(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights. With said transfer in circumstances such as those of the cas d’espèce, the principle of the effectiveness of norms (effet utile) is met under the terms of Articles 21 and 22 of the American Convention. 3. It ,may be recalled that, as a matter of fact, in the leading case of the Community Mayagna Awas Tingni v. Nicaragua (Judgment of August 31, 2001), in the application filed before the Court, the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights (ICHR) claimed for the first time in the history of the Court, the lack of demarcation of the lands possessed by such Community, as well as the lack of an effective procedure in Nicaragua for the demarcation of such lands. The Court ordered in its Judgment the creation of “an effective mechanism for the delimitation, demarcation and titling of the property of indigenous communities, in accordance with their customary law, values, uses and customs” (operative paragraph No. 3).That judgment forms part of the specialized juridical bibliography and constitutes a landmark in the Court´s jurisprudence regarding the question at issue.. 4. Immediately afterwards, in the Case of Moiwana Community v. Suriname (Judgment of June 15, 2005), the victims´representatives argued that the violations of the right to property (Article 21 of the Convention) by the State are “continued”, to the detriment of the “indigenous and tribal communities that have been forcibly displaced from their traditional lands,” and that the State has not established the legal mechanisms for the victims to “assert and secure their rights of tenure” (para. 122). In turn, the Court, after establishing its jurisdiction to render judgment regarding “the continued displacement of the community from its traditional territories” (para. 126), stated that the failure to “carry out an effective investigation” of the events occurred in the cas d’espèce “has prevented the members of the Community from living once again in safety and peace in their ancestral lands” (para. 128). 5. In the same case, the Court stated its understanding that in the case of the members of indigenous communities “the mere possession of the land should suffice