Community. In this regard, it considers that the facts described on this issue by the representatives are not related to Article 5 of the Convention but rather to Articles 4 and 21 thereof that have already been analyzed, and to the reparations that the Court will order below based on Article 63(1) of the Convention. 243. With regard to mental and moral integrity, the Court recalls that, in the case of the Moiwana Community v. Suriname, it found that “the separation of the members of the Community from their traditional lands” was a fact that, together with the impunity of the deaths that had occurred within the Community, caused the victims to suffer in such a way that it constituted a violation by the State of Article 5(1) of the American Convention to their detriment.275 244. In the instant case, several of the alleged victims who testified before the Court expressed the sorrow that they and the other members of the Community feel owing to the failure to restore their traditional lands, the gradual loss of their culture, and the long wait they have had to endure during the ineffective administrative procedure. In addition, the wretched living conditions that the members of the Community experience, the death of several of the Community’s members, and their general situation of abandonment give rise to sufferings that necessarily violate the mental and moral integrity of all the members of the Community. All this constitutes a violation of Article 5(1) of the Convention to the detriment of the members of the Xákmok Kásek Community. IX RIGHT TO JURIDICAL PERSONALITY (ARTICLE 3 OF THE AMERICAN CONVENTION) 245. The Commission argued that the State has not implemented mechanisms that allow the members of the Community access to “the identity documents required to exercise their right to recognition of juridical personality.” It indicated that, according to the 2006 census, 57 of the 212 people interviewed did not have identity documents; approximately 48 of them were children. According to the 2008 census, at least 43 of the 273 members of the Community did not have birth certificates; of these, at least 32 were minors.276 Also, the representatives indicated that according to the latest community census dated October 16, 2009, 35% of the members of the Community did not have documents. 246. The representatives added that a “large number of Xákmok Kásek individuals who lack documents […] are unable to prove their existence and identity legally.” They indicated that “none of the children who died in infancy were registered at birth, so that, when they died, they did not have birth certificates, which meant that their next of kin could not obtain death certificates.” 247. The State indicated that it had organized “documentation and registration activities […] in the Community,” and provided evidence of this. In this regard, it indicated that, on December 14, 2009, the INDI and the Civil Registry Office organized a documentation activity where the Community is settled and “receive[d] 35 (first time) requests for a national identity card and 10 renewal requests.”277 Moreover, it 275 Cf. Case of the Moiwana Community v. Suriname, supra note 129, paras. 101 to 103. 276 Cf. Census of the Xákmok Kásek Community of August 30, 2008, supra note 58, folios 2248 to 2264. 277 Cf. Report of the National Police Identification Department of December 21, 2009 (file of attachments to the answer to the application, attachment 1(3), folios 3278 to 3280). 57