2 5. It may be recalled that, in fact, in the leading case of the Community Mayagna Awas Tingni versus Nicaragua (Judgment of 8/31/2001), in the application filed before the Court the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights claimed, for the first time in the history of the Tribunal, the lack of demarcation of the lands possessed by that Community, as well as the lack of an effective procedure in Nicaragua for the demarcation of those lands. The Court ordered in its Judgment the creation of “an effective mechanism for delimitation, demarcation and titling of the properties of the indigenous communities, in accordance with their customary laws, values, uses and customs” (operative paragraph n. 3). That Judgment forms part of the specialized juridical bibliography, and constitutes a landmark in the Court’s jurisprudence regarding the question at issue. 6. Subsequently, in the case of Yakye Axa Indigenous Community versus Paraguay (Judgment of 6/16/2005), the victims’ representatives claimed that the “right of indigenous communities to communal property ownership of their lands is made concrete,” inter alia, through “the obligation of the State to delimit, demark, and title, the land of the respective villages.” (para. 121(d)). The Court also recognized the linking of the “right to community property of the indigenous communities over their traditional territories and the natural resources linked to their culture” with the term “goods” as contained in Article 21 of the Convention, and gave value to the guarantee of traditional expressions, customary law, the values and philosophy of those communities (paras. 137 and 154), and ordered the State to “identify the traditional territory of the members of the indigenous community of Yakye Axa and provide this free of charge” (operative paragraph n. 6). 7. Additionally, in the Case of the Moiwana Community versus Suriname (Judgment of 6/15/2005), the victims’ representatives argued that the violations of the right to property (article 21 of the Convention) by the State are “continued” to the detriment of the “indigenous and tribal communities that have been forcefully displaced from their traditional lands,” and that the State has not established legal mechanisms for the victims to “reclaim and secure their rights to the tenancy of the land” (para. 122). The Court, after establishing its competence to rule regarding the “continued displacement of the community and its traditional territories” (para. 126), affirmed that the lack of an “effective investigation” of the events occurred in the cas d’espece “has prevented the members of the village from once again living in their ancestral territories in a safe and non-violent fashion” (para. 128). 8. In the same case, the Court expressed its understanding that in the case of the members of indigenous communities, “possession of land should suffice when it comes to obtaining official recognition of the property and the consequential registration” (para. 131). It added that members of the Moiwana Community should be considered “legitimate owners” of their “traditional territories”, of which they have been deprived until the present day as a result of the massacre of 1986 and the subsequent failure by the State to investigate adequately the events (para. 134). 9. The representatives of the victims claimed “restitution and legal recognition of their right to their land and traditional resources as communal property” as a form of “guaranteeing the non-repetition” of the harmful events (para. 199(2)(f)). Consequently, the Court ordered that: “[T]he State should adopt all the legislative and administrative measures and any others which are necessary to ensure the property rights of