9 development fund” for those purposes, 21 which it has repeated in other cases related to indigenous peoples.22 38. Now, the meaning of this measure of reparation resides in the specific relationship that exists between: i) the rights of the indigenous peoples that are exercised in a communal manner, especially the right to collective property, ii) the bearers of those rights and, therefore, the beneficiaries of the measure of reparation when they are violated, and iii) the specific damage caused by the violation of those rights. 39. Regarding the right to collective property, in the Case of Mayagna v. Nicaragua it was acknowledged that the protection provided by Article 21 of the American Convention extends to the collective property of indigenous peoples. In this sense, the Court stated that: [a]mong indigenous peoples there is a communitarian tradition regarding a communal form of collective property of the land, in the sense that ownership of the land is not centered on an individual but rather on the group and its community. Indigenous groups, by the fact of their very existence, have the right to live freely in the 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, relations to the land are not merely a matter of possession and production but a material and spiritual element which they must fully enjoy, even to preserve their cultural legacy and transmit it to future generations.23 40. In consideration of the above and national legislation, the Court established that “the members of the Awas Tingni Community have a communal property right to the lands they currently inhabit.”24 Since then, this acknowledgment of the right to collective property has been repeated in subsequent cases dealing with indigenous and tribal peoples and constitutes one of the most significant advances in human rights matters, for which this Court’s case law stands out. 41. Regarding those entitled to the right to communal property, despite the acknowledgment of the special characteristics of the indigenous culture in 21 Cfr. Case of the Yakye Axa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of June 17, 2005. Series C No. 125, para. 205. This judgment also ordered the creation of a fund destined to the acquisition of the lands to be handed over to the Yakye Axa Community (para. 218). 22 Cfr. Case of the Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of March 29, 2006. Series C No. 146, para. 224; Case of Escué Zapata v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of July 4, 2007. Series C No. 165, para. 168; Case of the Saramaka People v. Suriname. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 28, 2007. Series C No. 172, para. 201; Case of the Xákmok Kásek Indigenous Community v. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of August 24, 2010. Series C No. 214, para. 323; Case of the Kichwa Indigenous People of Sarayaku v. Ecuador. Merits and reparations. Judgment of June 27, 2012. Series C No. 245, paras. 317 and 323, 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, paras. 240 and 247 (in these two last cases the pecuniary reparation for material and unmaterial damages was given to an existing association of the Sarayaku People and to the representatives of the indigenous communities, respectively). See also Case of the Plan de Sánchez Massacre v. Guatemala. Reparations. Judgment of November 19, 2004. Series C No. 116, para. 104 (regarding the endowment of resources for the collective memory of members of the Community or their representatives). 23 Case of the Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community v. Nicaragua. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of August 31, 2001. Series C No. 79, para. 149. 24 Case of the Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community v. Nicaragua. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of August 31, 2001. Series C No. 79, para. 153.