295. In view of the fact that the State has been found internationally responsible for the violation of Articles 1(1), 2, 3, 21, 23 and 25 of the Convention, which has resulted in the harm to extremely representative values of the members of the Kaliña and Lokono peoples that have an impact on their cultural identity and on the cultural heritage to be transmitted to future generations, the Court finds it appropriate, as it has in previous cases, 333 to establish the creation of a community development fund as compensation for the pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage suffered by the members of these peoples. Furthermore, this fund is in addition to any other present or future benefit that might correspond to the Kaliña and Lokono peoples as a result of the State’s general development obligations.334 296. Bearing in mind that “indigenous peoples have the right to the conservation and protection of the environment and the productive capacity of their lands or territories and resources,335 as well as the observations of the representatives concerning the requested investment projects, the Court finds that the purpose of the community development fund must be to develop projects in the areas of health, education, food security, resource management, and others that the Kaliña and Lokono peoples consider pertinent for their development. 297. The State must take all the necessary administrative, legislative, financial and human resource measures to create and implement this fund and, to this end, within three months of notification of this Judgment, it must appoint an authority with competence in this matter, to administer the Fund. Meanwhile, the Kaliña and Lokono peoples must choose a representative for the dialogue with the State, so that the fund is implemented in accordance with the will of the peoples.336 298. The State must allocate the sum of US$1,000,000.00 (one million United States dollars) to this fund, to be invested and implemented in keeping with the proposed objectives, within no more than three years of notification of this Judgment. 299. Lastly, the Court establishes that, during the implementation period, the parties must provide the Court with an annual report describing the projects in which the sum allocated to the fund is invested. E. Guarantees of non-repetition 300. In cases such as this one, in which repeated violations of the human rights of indigenous and tribal peoples have been committed, the guarantees of non-repetition acquire greater relevance as a measure of reparation, so that similar acts are not repeated and also to contribute to prevention.337 In this regard, the Court recalls that the State must adopt any legal, 333 Cf. Case of the Yakye Axa Indigenous Community, supra, para. 205, and Case of the Garífuna Community of Punta Piedra and its members, supra, para. 332. 334 Cf. Case of the Garífuna Community of Punta Piedra and its members, supra, paras. 332 to 336. 335 Cf. Article 29 (1) of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, supra. 336 Cf. Case of the Garífuna Community of Punta Piedra and its members, supra, para. 334. 337 Cf. Case of Pacheco Teruel el al. v. Honduras. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of April 27, 2012. Series C No. 241, para. 92. “The guarantees of non-repetition […] will contribute to prevention.” Cf. Principle 23 of the Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of International Human Rights Law and Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law. UN Doc. A/Res/60/147. Resolution adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on December 16, 2005, Principle 23. 76