5 7. As the Court has set forth in this regard, [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 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, relations to the land are not merely a matter of possession and production but a material and spiritual element that they must fully enjoy, even to preserve their cultural legacy and transmit it to future generations.3 8. It is fitting to recall that the Court determined that: [t]he right to life is a fundamental human right, and the exercise of this right is essential for the exercise of all other human rights. If it is not respected, all rights lack meaning. Owing to the fundamental nature of the right to life, restrictive approaches to it are inadmissible. In essence, the fundamental right to life includes, not only the right of every human being not to be deprived of his life arbitrarily, but also the right that he will not be prevented from having access to the conditions that guarantee a dignified existence. States have the obligation to guarantee the creation of the conditions required in order that violations of this basic right do not occur and, in particular, the duty to prevent its agents from violating it.4 9. The purpose of provisional measures, in International Human Rights Law, is to effectively protect fundamental rights, inasmuch as they seek to avoid irreparable damage to persons. Said measures can also be applied during the stage in which compliance with the judgment is overseen;5 in the instant case it is probable that irreparable damage will occur that it will preclude faithful and full compliance with the judgment on the merits and reparations in the case of the Mayagna Community, for which reason adoption of said measures is in order. 10. The State of Nicaragua reached an agreement with the representatives of the Community to grant “provisional recognition of the Community’s rights to use, occupation, and exploitation subsequent to carrying out the diagnostic study, along the lines of the proposal made by the Community and taking into account the results of the diagnostic study;” and said recognition has not been granted, and therefore it is necessary to protect the geographical area where the members of the Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community live and conduct their activities. THEREFORE: THE INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS by virtue of the authority conferred by Article 63(2) of the American Convention on Human Rights and Article 25 of its Rules of Procedure, Case. Reparations (Art. 63(1) Inter-American Convention on Human Rights). September 10, 1993 Judgment. Series C No. 15, para. 62. 3 I.A. Court of H.R. , Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community Case, supra note 1, para. 149. 4 I.A. Court of H.R., "Street Children” Case (Villagrán Morales et al.). November 19, 1999 Judgment. Series C No. 63, para. 144. 5 See. I.A. Court of H.R., Loayza Tamayo Case (Provisional Measures), February 3, 2001 Order. Series E No. 3, pp. 241-255 and see Loayza Tamayo Case (Provisional Measures), December 13, 2000 Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. Series E No. 3, pp. 231-239.