164. The Court will analyze these disputes in the following chapters: (a) the right to collective indigenous and tribal property; (b) the guarantee of the use and enjoyment of collective property and the failure to free the Garifuna territory of encumbrances; (c) Honduran property ownership regulations, and (d) the obligation to ensure the right to consultation and cultural identity. B.1 The right to collective indigenous and tribal property 165. The Court recalls its case law in this matter in the sense that Article 21 of the American Convention protects the close relationship that indigenous peoples have with their lands, as well as with the natural resources and the intangible elements derived from them. Indigenous peoples have a community-based tradition of the collective ownership of the land; thus, land is not owned by the individual but by the group and its community. 199 These notions of land ownership and possession do not necessarily conform to the classic concept of ownership, but the Court has established that they deserve equal protection under Article 21 of the American Convention. Ignoring the specific forms of the right to use and enjoyment of property based on the culture, practices, customs and beliefs of each people, would be tantamount to maintaining that there is only one way to use and dispose of property, which, in turn, would render protection under this provision illusory for millions of people. 200 166. The Court has taken into account that indigenous groups, by the fact of their very existence, have the right to live freely in their own territory; the close ties of indigenous people with the land must be recognized and understood as the fundamental basis of their cultures, their spiritual life, their integrity, and their economic survival. For indigenous communities, the relationship with the land is not merely a matter of possession and production but a material and spiritual element that they should enjoy fully, even to preserve their cultural legacy and transmit it to future generations. 201 “The culture of the members of indigenous communities directly relates to a specific way of being, seeing, and acting in the world, developed on the basis of their close relationship with their traditional territories and the resources therein, not only because these are their main means of subsistence, but also because they are part of their worldview, their religiosity, and therefore, their cultural identity”; 202 consequently, the protection and guarantee of the right [to the use and enjoyment of their territory] is necessary to ensure [not only] their survival,” 203 but also their development and evolution as a people. 199 Cf. Case of the Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community v. Nicaragua. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 31, 2001. Series C No. 79, para. 148, and Case of the Kuna Indigenous People of Madungandí and the Emberá Indigenous People of Bayano and their Members v. Panama. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of October 14, 2014. Series C No. 284, para. 111. 200 Cf. Case of the Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of March 29, 2006. Series C No. 146, para. 120, and Case of the Kuna Indigenous People of Madungandí and the Emberá Indigenous People of Bayano and their Members, supra, para. 111. 201 Cf. Case of the Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community, supra, para. 149 and Case of the Xákmok Kásek Indigenous Community v. Paraguay. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 24, 2010. Series C No. 214, para. 86. 202 Case of the Yakye Axa Indigenous Community, supra, para. 135, and Case of the Kuna Indigenous People of Madungandí and the Emberá Indigenous People of Bayano and their Members, supra, para. 112. 203 Cf. Case of the Yakye Axa Indigenous Community, supra, paras. 124, 135 and 137 and Case of the Kuna Indigenous People of Madungandí and the Emberá Indigenous People of Bayano and their members, supra, para. 112. 49