31 112. The Court also observes that from the several testimonies rendered during the process, the leadership of Florencio Chitay Nech is noticeable. Thus, Pablo Werner Ramírez Rivas declared that “[d]uring the time of the armed conflict many of the great leaders […] of the [DCG] Party were lost, and as a consequence of their labor and municipal leadership [, Florencio Chitay Nech] was kidnapped.”115 Likewise, Gabriel Augusto Guerra pointed out that Mr. Chitay Nech “was not only a leader on the municipal level, but also on the department [provincial] level, and the national level.”116 In turn, Julian Zet declared that he “had to live next to [Florencio Chitay alias] don Lencho […], leader of [his] village, that fought for the wellbeing of [the] community, paying with his life, offering it to the service of [the people].”117 113. Due to the foregoing, with the harassment and later disappearance of Florencio Chitay Nech, not only was the exercise of his political right shattered during the period of his charge, but he was also prevented from fulfilling a mandate and a vocation within the process of formation of community leaders. Likewise, the community was deprived of the representation of one of its leaders in the various forums of its social structure, and principally in access to the full exercise of the direct participation of an indigenous leader in the structures of the State, where the representation of groups in situations of inequality becomes a necessary prerequisite for the self-determination and the development of the indigenous communities within a plural and democratic State. 114. In this sense, the Court has acknowledged that the State shall guarantee that “the members of the indigenous and ethnic communities […] are able to participate in the making of decisions regarding matters and policies that affect or may affect their rights and the development of such communities, in a manner that they can integrate themselves into the State institutions and organs and participate in a direct manner proportional to their population in the leadership of public affairs […] and in accordance with their values, traditions, customs and forms of organization.”118 The contrary affects the lack of representation in the institutions charged with adopting policies and programs that could affect their development.119 115. The Court notices that in the development of the represented political participation, those elected exercise their charge by mandate or designation120 and in representation of a community. This duality is both the right of the individual to exercise the mandate or designation (direct participation) as well as in the right of the community to be represented. In this sense, the violation of the first reverberates in the damage of the other right. 115 Statement of Pablo Werner Ramírez Rivas, supra note 53. 116 Statement of Gabriel Augusto Guerra, supra note 58. 117 Statement of Julián Zet, supra note 56. 118 Case Yatama V. Nicaragua, supra note 108, para. 225. 119 Cf. Case Yatama V. Nicaragua, supra note 108, para. 227. 120 The Court has established that “the right to have access of public duties in general conditions of equality protects the access, in a direct manner, the participation in design, implementation, development, and execution of state policy via public funtions. It is understood that these general conditions of equaity are directed both to access and public functions by popular vote as well as by designation.” Case Yatama V. Nicaragua, supra note 108, para. 200.