13 52. In subsequent cases, as well as in this judgment, the Court has repeated that the injured party is the indigenous or tribal Peoples and their members. 43 53. Taking this into consideration, it can be verified that in the Court’s case law there is now an agreement between the right to collective property and those entitled to this right, namely the Community and its members, who are also beneficiaries of the measures of reparation. It is also acknowledged that the impact of the violations on the Community have a specific nature that must be recognized. It is necessary to add this to the collective compensation. 54. Collective compensation is maybe the only way in which the specific damage suffered by the Community as a whole, which is different to the damage suffered by its members as individuals, can be adequately redressed, even when they are both intimately related.44 As established by the Court in the Case of the Yakye Axa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay: “reparations take on a special collective significance”45 when they refer to an indigenous or tribal group. 55. In fact, only granting individual reparations in cases of indigenous or tribal peoples, besides being inconsistent with their world view and collective way of life, may affect the communities’ social and cultural fabric and cause division between its members because it is contrary to their customs and traditions. Therefore, the collective compensation measure, ordered in this case through a Community development fund, and not the payment of individual reparations to its members, must be the general rule in cases dealing with indigenous and tribal peoples,. The most obvious exception to this general rule would be the cases dealing with specific damages caused in detriment of certain individuals, members of a Community. (iii) Aspects regarding the administration of the Community development fund 56. In previous cases, for the first time in the Case of the Yakye Axa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay, the Court ordered, along with the creation of a Community development fund, the establishment of an “implementation committee” which would determine “[t]he specific components of said projects [educational, housing, agricultural, and health in benefit of the members of the Community].” The mentioned committee would have a representative appointed 43 Case of the Kuna Indigenous People of Madungandí and the Emberá Indigenous People of Bayano and their Members v. Panama. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of October 14, 2014. Series C No. 284, para. 209; Case of the Afro-descendant Communities displaced from the Cacarica River Basin (Operation Genesis) v. Colombia. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 20, 2013. Series C No. 270, fourth operative paragraph and para. 257. 44 Cfr. United Nations, Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 23, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/21/Rev.l/Add.S, of April 26, 1994, para. 6(2): “[a]lthough the rights protected under Article 27 [of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights] are individual rights, they depend in turn on the ability of the minority group to maintain its culture, language, or religion.” 45 Case of the Yakye Axa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of June 17, 2005. Series C No. 125, para. 188.