35 “exercise of the right to participate in the conduit of public affairs” of Mr. Escué Zapata has been violated, whereas with respect to the “social dimension,” they allege there was a violation of the political rights of Paez People ”to designate who will govern and take care, in accordance with their traditions, usages and customs, of their political affairs, as well as the right to influence and participate, through their representatives, in the making of decisions that affect the collective life project." 119. The Inter-American Commission did not declare the violation of the rights to participate in government of Mr. Escué Zapata or the members of the Community in the Report that it adopted in conjunction with the Article 50 of the Convention (supra, para. 1), neither did it submit allegations in that regard in the application. Nevertheless, in the public hearing and later on, in its final arguments, the Commission alleged that "the murder of Germán Escué did not only prevent the person from exercising its authority within the indigenous government, but also prevented the [N]asa People from exercising its right to participate in the conduit of public affairs through its representatives.” 120. The State alleged that the right to participate in government of Mr. Escué Zapata or of the members of the Community has not been violated since Mr. Escué Zapata "was not, by the time of the facts, a political authority of the Indigenous Resguardo de Jambaló." 121. The Court shall analyze the alleged violation of Article 23(1) of the Convention in conjunction with Article 4(1) therein, to the detriment of Mr. Germán Escué only, since it is a legal issue asserted by the representatives since the first brief. The alleged violation of the political rights of the Community or its members will not be analyzed, since it now includes new victims who have not been identified by the Commission in the proper procedural time. 122. The justification of the alleged violation of Article 23 to the detriment of Mr. Escué Zapata is based on the fact that with his death he was prevented from exercising its "authority in the indigenous government." According to the case-law of the Tribunal, “the arbitrary deprivation of life suppresses the human being and, consequently, in these circumstances, it is not in order to invoke the alleged violation […] of other rights embodied in the American Convention.”113 In addition, the political rights established in Article 23 of the American Convention have, like the other rights safeguarded in the Convention, a unique legal content. In the instant case, it has not been mentioned, apart from the victim's death, another fact that violates the specific legal content of Article 23. 123. In consideration of the foregoing, the Tribunal concludes that the violation of the rights established in Article 23(1) of the Convention, to the detriment of Mr. Escué Zapata, has not been proved. 124. Without prejudice to the above mentioned, the Court acknowledges that the loss of a leader for the Paez People meant a "dismemberment and damage to the whole community; frustration in view of the great confidence people gave him to help them having a good standard of living and feelings of loss in view of the collective efforts made to, with the support of the Community, develop its mission as a special person.”114 125. The Court will analyze this situation when determining the corresponding reparations, taking into account that the State itself pointed out that "the measures for reparations provided by the State, such as, the recovery of the historical memory of the victim, the publication of the Judgment and the non-repetition obligations[,] are focused to repair the society as a whole and inside of it, the members of Vereda de Vitoyó." 113 Cf. Case of Bámaca-Velásquez v. Guatemala, supra note 85, para. 180 and Case of La Cantuta v. Peru, supra note 8, para. 119. 114 Cf. Anthropological expert’s opinion, rendered by Esther Sánchez de Guzmán, on January 19, 2007 (records of the merits, Volume III, page 611).