15 61. In this same sense, the Court has established in previous cases that, regarding the Fund “[t]he manner in which the State will make the foregoing reparation is to be decided by the State itself, as long as the spirit of the reparation meant to […] be observed and the Community to which he belonged may benefit from works or services thereby chosen, without the State interfering with the purposes for which the Community may want to use such funds.”51 62. Therefore, it is important that the implementation of the Fund and any investment plan made be consulted and have the Community’s effective participation, taking into consideration international standards for consultations. Namely, said consultation must be of a prior nature, be carried out in good faith, with the aim of reaching an agreement, appropriate, accessible, and informed. 52 63. The foregoing was included in the judgment regarding the development projects, mentioning that they would be carried out “as agreed with the Community of Triunfo de la Cruz” and that “the implementation of the Fund would be done as defined by the Community.”53 It is important that the implementation be in accordance with the Community’s customs. If not, the sense of this form of collective compensation as a measure to redress the specific damage caused in detriment of the indigenous or tribal peoples would lose its essence. D. Problems of delimitation and “remediation” of lands as an expression of a social situation 64. The majority of the cases that deal with human rights committed in detriment of indigenous and tribal peoples or their members submitted to the jurisdiction of the Court refer to, among others, the delimitation, demarcation, and titling of traditional lands.54 Within the factual framework of several of these cases we can find the historical circumstances that led, at least partially, to the current situation faced by these peoples, including their insecurity regarding the use and property of their lands. These factual frameworks also let us observe the domestic situations in the corresponding countries that probably contribute to maintaining their situations of insecurity and marginalization. 65. In this sense, problems of delimitation, demarcation, titling, and “remediation” of lands inhabited by indigenous or tribal communities and third parties should not be understood as merely legal problems, but as expressions of more complex 51 Case of Escué Zapata v. Colombia. Interpretation of the Judgment on Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of May 5, 2008. Series C No. 178, para. 21. See also, Case of Aloeboetoe et al. v. Suriname. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 10, 1993. Series C No. 15, para. 108 in which the Court indicated that the State “shall not be permitted to restrict or tax the activities of the Foundation or the operation of the trust funds beyond current levels, nor shall it modify any conditions currently in force nor interfere in the Foundation’s decisions, except in ways that would be favorable to it.” 52 Para. 160 of the judgment, and Case of the Kichwa Indigenous People of Sarayaku v. Ecuador, para. 178. 53 Paras. 296 and 297 of the judgment. Case of the Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community v. Nicaragua; Case of the Yakye Axa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay; Case of the Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay; Case of the Saramaka People v. Suriname; Case of the Xákmok Kásek Indigenous Community v. Paraguay; Case of the Kuna Indigenous People of Madungandí and the Emberá Indigenous Bayano and their Members v. Panama. 54