carrying out projects in the territory of the Cacarica River basin that affect the use and enjoyment of the land and natural resources by the victims in this case.”588 343. The State indicated that it was not internationally responsible for the violation of the right to property of the inhabitants of the Cacarica River basin, because “there is no causal nexus between the violation of the right […] to property and the action deployed by State agents,” and neither has there been an “omission that can be attributed to State agents.” Regarding the “company projects and environmental damage during the transitional period of the return to the territory” cited by the representatives, the State indicated that “these are situations that, on the one hand, occurred after the events of Operation Genesis and, on the other, are unconnected to those events.” B. Considerations of the Court 344. Regarding the presumed violations of the right to property, the Court notes that the arguments of the parties and the Commission include allegations relating to two aspects: (1) the harm to the individual and collective property of the communities of the Cacarica River basin, and (2) the presumed illegal exploitation of the territories of the Community Council of the Communities of the Cacarica River basin. B.1. The harm to the individual and collective property of the communities of the Cacarica River basin 345. The presumed victims are members of Afro-descendant communities that settled in the Cacarica river basin in a process of seeking land following the abolition of slavery in the midnineteenth century, at which time a migratory process commenced from the southern part of the Pacific region of Colombia to the southern part of Chocó, then to the Medio and Bajo Atrato. Thus, the Community Council of the Communities of the Cacarica River basin is composed of communities that have been located in the jurisdiction of the municipality of Riosucio, Chocó department, between the left bank of the Atrato River and the right bank of the Cacarica River (supra para. 86). 346. The Court recalls that, in the context of the right to property of members of indigenous peoples, Article 21 of the Convention protects the close ties that indigenous and other tribal peoples or communities, such as the Afro-descendants, have to their land, as well as to the natural resources of the ancestral territories and the incorporeal elements related to them.589 Due precisely to this intrinsic connection that the members of the indigenous and tribal peoples have to their territory, the protection of the right to the ownership, use and enjoyment of this territory is necessary to ensure their survival.590 347. As indicated (supra para. 131), in 1967, the Colombian State had already enacted a domestic law recognizing to the “black communities” the right to collective ownership of the 588 The representatives indicated that “the State has not disputed the fact that companies were illegally exploiting the territory while the victims were in a situation of forced displacement and that, owing to these illegal actions, the Constitutional Court issued a protection order (amparo) ordering the suspension of logging, and the Public Prosecution Service opened disciplinary proceedings against the local environmental authorities who had allowed the illegal exploitation of the territory.” 589 Cf. Case of the Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community v. Nicaragua. Preliminary objections. Judgment of February 1, 2000. Series C No. 66, para. 148, and Case of the Kichwa Indigenous People of Sarayaku v. Ecuador. Merits and reparations. Judgment of June 27, 2012. Series C No. 245, para. 145. 590 Cf. Case of the Yakye Axa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 17, 2005. Series C No. 125, paras. 125, 124, 135 and 137, and Case of the Kichwa Indigenous People of Sarayaku v. Ecuador, para. 146. 113