12 to male and female members of these peoples;”41 and to Article 1 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples: “[i]ndigenous peoples have the right to the full enjoyment, as a collective or as individuals, of all human rights and fundamental freedoms as recognized in the Charter of the United Nations, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and international human rights law.”42 52. In subsequent cases, as well as in this judgment, the Court has repeated that the injured party is the indigenous or tribal Peoples and their members. 43 53. Taking this into consideration, it can be verified that in the Court’s case law there is now an agreement between the right to collective property and those entitled to this right, namely the Community and its members, who are also beneficiaries of the measures of reparation. It is also acknowledged that the impact of the violations on the Community have a specific nature that must be recognized. It is necessary to add this to the collective compensation. 54. Collective compensation is maybe the only way in which the specific damage suffered by the Community as a whole, which is different to the damage suffered by its members as individuals, can be adequately redressed, even when they are both intimately related.44 As established by the Court in the Case of the Yakye Axa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay: “reparations take on a special collective significance”45 when they refer to an indigenous or tribal group. 55. In fact, only granting individual reparations in cases of indigenous or tribal peoples, besides being inconsistent with their world view and collective way of life, may affect the communities’ social and cultural fabric and cause division between its members because it is contrary to their customs and traditions. Therefore, the collective compensation measure, ordered in this case through a Community development fund, and not the payment of individual reparations to its members, must be the general rule in cases dealing with indigenous and tribal peoples,. The most obvious exception to this general rule would be the cases dealing with specific damages caused in detriment of certain individuals, members of a Community. International Labor Organization (ILO), Convention No. 169 on Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries, adopted on June 27, 1989 and in force since September 5, 1991. 41 The Court also referred to United Nations, Committee on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, General Comment No. 17, U.N. Doc. E/C.12/GC/17, of November 2006, paras. 7, 8, and 32; General Comment No. 21, U.N. Doc. E/C.12/GC/21, of November 2009, paras. 8 to 9; African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights of 1986, Articles 20 to 22. 42 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. 209; Case of the Afro-descendant Communities displaced from the Cacarica River Basin (Operation Genesis) v. Colombia. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 20, 2013. Series C No. 270, fourth operative paragraph and para. 257. 43 Cfr. United Nations, Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 23, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/21/Rev.l/Add.S, of April 26, 1994, para. 6(2): “[a]lthough the rights protected under Article 27 [of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights] are individual rights, they depend in turn on the ability of the minority group to maintain its culture, language, or religion.” 44 Case of the Yakye Axa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of June 17, 2005. Series C No. 125, para. 188. 45