B.2 The failure to recognize the right to collective property of the Kaliña and Lokono indigenous peoples B.2.1 The right to collective ownership and the obligation to delimit, demarcate, grant title to, and ensure the use and enjoyment of the collective territory 129. The Court recalls its case law in this regard in the sense that Article 21 of the American Convention protects the close relationship that the indigenous peoples have with their lands, as well as with the natural resources within those lands, and the incorporeal elements that are derived from them. “Among the indigenous peoples there is a communal tradition as regards the collective ownership of the land, in the sense that the ownership is not centered on an individual, but rather on the group and its community. This notion of ownership and possession of land does not necessarily conform to the classic concept of property, but the Court has established that it deserves equal protection under Article 21 of the American Convention. Disregard for specific versions of the use and enjoyment of property arising from the culture, uses, customs and beliefs of each people, would be tantamount to holding that there is only one way of using and disposing of property, which, in turn, would render protection under that provision illusory for these communities.”165 130. The Court has considered that, owing to their very existence, the indigenous peoples have a right to live freely in their territories. In addition, the close relationship that the indigenous peoples have with the land should be recognized and understood as the essential basis of their culture, spiritual life, integrity and economic system. “For the indigenous communities, the relationship with the land is not merely a question of possession and production, but rather a material and spiritual element that they should be able to enjoy fully, including to preserve their cultural legacy and transmit it to the future generations.”166 The culture of the members of the indigenous communities corresponds to a particular way of being, seeing and acting in the world, based on their close relationship with their traditional lands and natural resources, not only because these are their main means of subsistence, but also because they are a component of their world vision, their religious beliefs and, consequently, their cultural identity,167 so that the protection and guarantee of the right to use and enjoyment of their territory is necessary in order to safeguard not only the survival of these communities, but also their development and evolution as a people.168 131. Throughout its case law on this matter, the Court has stressed the relevance of ensuring the protection of the collective nature of indigenous property (supra para. 129). In this regard, in the cases against Paraguay of the Yakye Axa, Sawhoyamaxa and Xákmok Kásek communities, the Court established that: (a) the traditional possession by the indigenous peoples of their lands had equivalent effects to the full title granted by the State, so that the area possessed in practice was equal to their property; (b) the members of the indigenous peoples who, for reasons beyond 165 Cf. Case of the Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of March 29, 2006. Series C. 146, para. 120, and Case of the Garífuna Community of Punta Piedra and its members, supra, para. 165. 166 Cf. 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, and Case of the Garífuna Community of Punta Piedra and its members, supra, para. 166. 167 Cf. Case of the Yakye Axa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 17, 2005. Series C No. 125, para. 135, and Case of the Garífuna Community of Punta Piedra and its members, supra, para.166. 168 Cf. Case of the Yakye Axa Indigenous Community, supra, paras. 124, 135 and 137, and Case of the Garífuna Community of Punta Piedra and its members, supra, para. 166. 36