63 identity involve, inter alia, the expression and preservation of their beliefs, language, customs, dress, way of life, sacred places and social organization.362 272. The Commission considers that the Army’s counterinsurgency policy sought not only to destroy the social bases of the guerrilla movement, but also to destroy the cultural values that gave the indigenous communities their sense of cohesion and collective endeavor. From the facts established in this case, the victims who were extrajudicially executed did not receive a burial according to the community’s traditions. On the contrary, they were buried in clandestine graves. 273. The Commission considers that the way in which the cadavers were destroyed and the way in which the mortal remains of the victims were buried, without respecting the survivors’ cultural, spiritual and religious beliefs, is a violation of Article 12 of the Convention, read in conjunction with Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of the members of the community of the village of Chichupac and neighboring communities. 274. The Inter-American Court has held that the right to freedom of association refers to “the right to join with others in lawful common pursuits, without pressure or interference that may alter or impair the nature of such purpose.”363 In the instant case, the analysis should be done as a function of the role the exercise of that right plays in the community life of indigenous peoples. 275. The IACHR also recalls the fundamental role that observance of political rights plays in strengthening a democratic society and the rule of law, which the Court has repeatedly pointed out. Here the Court has written that: […] Political rights are human rights of fundamental importance within the inter-American system and they are closely related to other rights embodied in the American Convention, such as freedom of expression, and freedom of association and assembly; together, they make 364 democracy possible. […] 276. On the subject of the indigenous peoples’ community life, their authorities and the effect of leaving such communities without leaders, the CEH observed that: […] The concept of authority in Maya communities has to do with service, wisdom and counsel. The authority figures are persons with experience in serving the community. They are the ones who can build consensus, provide advice and guidance, find arrangements satisfactory to the parties, rehabilitate those who violate community norms and restore harmony to the community […] 362 IACHR, Report No. 86/10, Case 12,649, Merits, Community of Río Negro of the Maya Indigenous People and Its Members, Guatemala, July 14, 2000, par.334. 363 I/A Court H.R., Case of Kawas Fernández v. Honduras. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of April 3, 2009. Series C No. 196, par.143; Case of Baena Ricardo et al. Merits, Reparations and Costs, Judgment of February 2, 2001. Series C No. 72, par.156. See also Case of Huilca Tecse v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of March 3, 2005. Series C No. 121, par.69; and Case of Cantoral Huamaní and García Santa Cruz v. Peru. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 10, 2007. Series C No. 167, par.144. 364 I/A Court H.R., Case of Castañeda Gutman v. Mexico. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 6, 2008. Series C No. 184, par.140; Case of Yatama v. Nicaragua. Judgment of June 23, 2005. Series C No. 127, par.191; The Word “Laws” in Article 30 of the American Convention on Human Rights. Advisory Opinion OC-6/86 of May 9, 1986. Series A No. 6, para. 34.