53 194. The right to territory includes the use and enjoyment of the natural resources found in the territory, and is directly tied to, indeed is a prerequisite for, the rights to a dignified existence, food, water, 285 health, and life. For this reason, the IACHR has indicated that “an indigenous community’s ‘relations to its land and resources are protected by other rights set forth in the American Convention, such as the right to life, honor, and dignity, freedom of conscience and religion, freedom of association, rights of the 286 family, and freedom of movement and residence.’” 195. Similarly, the IACHR and the Inter-American Court have established that indigenous peoples, as collective subjects distinguishable from their individual members, are rightsholders recognized by the American Convention. In that respect, in its recent judgment in Case of Kichwa Indigenous People of Sarayaku v. Ecuador, the Inter-American Court stated that ”international legislation concerning indigenous or tribal communities and peoples recognizes their rights as collective subjects of International Law and not only as individuals.“ In addition, the Court stated that ”[g]iven that indigenous or tribal communities and peoples, united by their particular ways of life and identity, exercise certain rights recognized by the Convention on a collective basis, the Court points out that the legal considerations 287 expressed or issued in this Judgment should be understood from that collective perspective.“ In that 288 sense, and as in previous cases, the IACHR will analyze the present case from a collective perspective. 2. The indigenous territorial claim in the instant case 196. The Commission notes that, pursuant to the international and domestic rules mentioned above, even at the time of the construction of Hydroelectric Bayano, Panama was required to not disposess the property, even for a public purpose, without the payment of fair and adequate compensation, and without discrimination. 2.1. Breach of the duty to pay just and prompt compensation for the alienation of the ancestral territories of the Kuna indigenous people of Madungandí and the Emberá indigenous people of Bayano and their members – Article 21 of the Convention, in relation to its Article 1(1) 197. The IACHR and the Court have recognized that indigenous and tribal peoples have a right to reparation in those exceptional cases in which there are objective and justified reasons that make it impossible for the State to restore their territorial rights. It has been explained by the Inter-American Court in the following terms: when a State is unable, on objective and reasoned grounds, to adopt measures aimed at returning traditional lands and communal resources to indigenous populations, it must surrender alternative 285 IACHR, Democracy and Human Rights in Venezuela, 2009. Doc. OEA/Ser.L/V/II, Doc. 54, December 30, 2009, paras. 1076-1080. 286 IACHR, Indigenous and Tribal Peoples' Rights over their Ancestral Lands and Natural Resources: Norms and Jurisprudence of the Inter-American Human Rights System, 2010, para. 184. 287 I/A Court H.R., Case of Kichwa Indigenous People of Sarayaku v. Ecuador. Merits and reparations. Judgment of June 27, 2012. Series C No. 245, para. 231. 288 See, e.g., IACHR, Case presented to the Inter-Am. Court H.R. in the Case of Mayagna (Sumo) Community Awas Tingni vs. Nicaragua, June 4, 1998; IACHR, Case presented to the Inter-Am. Court H.R. in the case of Yakye Axa Indigenous Community vs. Paraguay, March 17, 2003; Report No. 40/04, Case 12.053, Maya Indigenous Community of the District of Toledo v. Belize, October 12, 2004; IACHR, Case presented to the Inter-Am. Court H.R. in the Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay, February 2005; IACHR, Case presented to the Inter-Am. Court H.R. in the Case of the Saramaka People vs. Suriname, June 23, 2006; IACHR, Case presented to the Inter-Am. Court H.R. in the Case of Yákmok Kásek Indigenous Community v. Paraguay, July 3, 2009; IACHR, Case presented to the Inter-Am. Court H.R. in the Case of the Kichwa Indigenous People of Sarayaku and its members v. Ecuador, April 26, 2010.