10 43. Following this line of reasoning, in previous cases, the Court has ordered -for example- the creation of trusts in a case dealing with tribal peoples, with a Foundation serving as trustee in charge of administrating or distributing reparations for material and unmaterial damages. These reparations were ordered in benefit of certain individuals that were members of the Community, but not in benefit of the Community itself. 28 Similarly, the Court has ordered the payment of a specific amount for the concept of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages to the organization of an indigenous Community for its subsequent distribution to the members of the Community, beneficiaries of the compensation.29 44. Regarding the specific damage caused by the violation of human rights in cases dealing with indigenous and tribal peoples, previous judgments not always acknowledged that a non-pecuniary damage had been caused to the Community as a whole.30 However, at least since the Case of the Plan de Sánchez Massacre v. Guatemala, the Court has established that: “[g]iven that the victims in this case are members of the Mayan people, this Court considers that an important component of the individual reparation is the reparation that the Court will now grant to the members of the community as a whole.”31 45. Later, in the Case of the Saramaka People v. Suriname the Court recognized, upon determining non-pecuniary damage, the specific manner in which that damage manifests itself when dealing with indigenous or tribal peoples and considered the impact the violations of human rights had in that case on the People as a whole. In this sense, it established that those violations constituted “a denigration of their basic cultural and spiritual values” and that “the immaterial damage caused to the Saramaka people by these alterations to the very fabric of their society entitles them to a just compensation.”32 However, it ordered payment of the reparations to members of the Community. 46. The Court had already established the importance of acknowledging the juridical personality of the members of an indigenous community,33 and in the Case of Saramaka it recognized this importance specifically in reference to the indigenous or tribal peoples themselves, being able to exercise said rights such as the right to collective property. 34 The Court established that acknowledgment of the juridical personality of the Peoples “is a natural consequence of the recognition of the right of members of indigenous and tribal groups to enjoy certain rights in a communal manner.”35 Additionally, it established that that the recognition of the juridical personality of only the individual members of an indigenous or tribal community “fails to take into account the manner in which members Cfr. Case of Aloeboetoe et al. v. Suriname. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 10, 1993. Series C No. 15, paras. 100 to 108. 29 Cfr. Case of Yatama v. Nicaragua. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of June 23, 2005. Series C No. 127, para. 248. 28 Cfr. Case of Aloeboetoe et al. v. Suriname. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 10, 1993. Series C No. 15, paras. 83 to 84. 30 Cfr. Case of the Plan de Sánchez Massacre v. Guatemala. Reparations. Judgment of November 19, 2004. Series C No. 116, para. 86. 31 Case of the Saramaka People v. Suriname. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 28, 2007. Series C No. 172, para. 200. 32 33 Cfr. Case of the Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay, paras. 187 to 194. 34 Cfr. Case of the Saramaka People v. Suriname, para. 167. 35 Case of the Saramaka People v. Suriname, para. 172.