48 be considered as pre-conditions to the rights to life, personal integrity and health. The IACHR has explained that “continued utilization of traditional collective systems for the control and use of territory are in many instances essential to the individual and collective well-being, and indeed the survival of, 151 indigenous peoples.” Control of the land “refers both its capacity for providing the resources which sustain life, and to the geographic space necessary for the cultural and social reproduction of the 152 group” . 169. It is equally important for indigenous peoples to be allocated a territory which is of sufficient extension and materially continuous, that is, not fragmented, for purposes of allowing the full development of their ancestral ways of life. In the case of nomadic, hunter-gatherer indigenous communities, sufficient extension and territorial continuity guarantee that the traditional traveling circuits are maintained without obstacles that hamper mobility. The IACHR, referring to such hunter-gatherer indigenous communities, has clarified that “the area transferred must be sufficient for conservation of their form of life, to ensure their cultural and economic viability, as well as their own expansion”. 170. According to various documents presented, the indigenous communities that inhabit Lots 14 and 55, not belonging to the Lhaka Honhat Association, have stated on different opportunities that they wish to receive collective, communal property titles which are separate from those of the other communities of the area, given that they do not wish to share the management of their autonomous 153 decisions with those communities . 171. The IACHR finds that the communities belonging to the Lhaka Honhat Association are entitled to a single title that ensures the maintenance of their traditional way of life and social and economic activities. At the same time, the IACHR considers that any dispute with other communities should be resolved through modalities of negotiation and settlement dictated by the indigenous communities themselves and through demarcation of the lands in a way that preserves the traditional nomadic pathways and circuits of the petitioners. 1.2. The Scope of indigenous peoples’ territorial rights 172. Indigenous peoples have a special, unique and internationally protected relationship with their ancestral territories, which is absent in the case of the non-indigenous. This special and unique relationship has international legal protection. As reiterated by the IACHR and the Inter-American Court, 154 preserving the particular connection between indigenous communities and their lands and resources 155 is linked to these peoples’ very existence and thus “warrants special measures of protection.” Indigenous and tribal peoples’ right to property, established in Article 21 of the American Convention and Article XXIII of the American Declaration, protects the close bond they have with their territories and the 156 natural resources linked to their culture that are present therein. As the Court has stated “the close ties of indigenous people with the land must be recognized and understood as the fundamental basis of their 151 IACHR, Report No. 75/02, Case 11.140, Mary and Carrie Dann (United States), December 27, 2002, par. 128. 152 IACHR, Report No. 75/02, Case 11.140, Mary and Carrie Dann (United States), December 27, 2002, par. 128. 153 Minutes of a meeting held on April 28, 2009 between the Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development, the Secretariat of Environmental Policy, and representatives of the indigenous communities that inhabit Fiscal Lots 55 and 14. Annex to a communication of the State of May 3, 2011. 154 I/A Court H.R., Case of the Saramaka People v. Suriname. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 28, 2007. Series C No. 172, par. 91. 155 156 IACHR, Report No. 75/02, Case 11.140, Mary and Carrie Dann (United States), December 27, 2002, par. 128. IACHR, Follow-up Report - Access to Justice and Social Inclusion: The Road towards Strengthening Democracy in Bolivia. Doc. OEA/Ser/L/V/II.135, Doc. 40, August 7, 2009, par. 156. I/A Court H.R., Case of the Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community v. Nicaragua. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of January 31, 2001. Series C No. 79, par. 148. I/A Court H.R., Case of the Yakye Axa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 17, 2005. Series C No. 125, par. 137. I/A Court H.R., Case of the Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of March 29, 2006. Series C No. 146, pars. 118, 121.