11 of indigenous and tribal peoples in general […] enjoy and exercise a particular right; that is, the right to use and enjoy property collectively in accordance with their ancestral traditions.”36 47. As previously stated by the Court, recognition of juridical personality is essential, since the breach of said recognition “implies the absolute denial of the possibility of being the holder of such rights and of assuming obligations, and renders individuals vulnerable to the non-observance of the same by the State or by individuals.” The States must guarantee “the legal and administrative conditions that may secure for them the exercise of such right” especially to “those persons in situations of vulnerability, exclusion, and discrimination.”37 48. For the first time in the Case of the Kichwa Indigenous Community of Sarayaku v. Ecuador, the Court established that the violation of the rights to consultation, to indigenous community property, and to cultural identity, but also to the judicial guarantees and judicial protection, had been perpetrated in detriment of the Kichwa Indigenous People of Sarayaku.38 49. Additionally, the Court established that the injured party was the Community and considered that: On previous occasions, in cases concerning indigenous and tribal communities or peoples, the Court has declared violations to the detriment of the members of indigenous or tribal communities and peoples. However, international law on indigenous or tribal communities and peoples recognizes rights to the peoples as collective subjects of international law and not only as members of such communities or peoples. In view of the fact that indigenous or tribal communities and peoples, united by their particular ways of life and identity, exercise some rights recognized by the Convention on a collective basis, the Court points out that the legal considerations expressed or indicated in this Judgment should be understood from that collective perspective.39 50. Upon ordering pecuniary reparations for non-pecuniary damages, the Court considered the specific damage caused in detriment of the Community, referring to “the suffering caused to the People and to their cultural identity, the impact on their territory, […] as well as the changes caused in their living conditions and way of life.”40 51. This important development was made, as stated by the Court, following the corresponding international regulations, referring specifically to Article 3(1) of Convention 169 of the ILO, which states that: “[i]ndigenous and tribal peoples shall enjoy the full measure of human rights and fundamental freedoms without hindrance or discrimination. The provisions of the Convention shall be applied without discrimination 36 Case of the Saramaka People v. Suriname, paras. 168 to 169. Case of the Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay, paras. 188 to 189; Cfr. Case of the Girls Yean and Bosico v. Dominican Republic. Judgment of September 8, 2005. Series C No. 130, para. 179, and Case of Bámaca Velásquez v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of November 25, 2000. Series C No. 70, para. 179. 37 Cfr. Case of the Kichwa Indigenous People of Sarayaku v. Ecuador. Merits and Reparations. Judgment of June 27, 2012. Series C No. 245, para. 341(2) and (4). 38 Case of the Kichwa Indigenous People of Sarayaku v. Ecuador. Merits and Reparations. Judgment of June 27, 2012. Series C No. 245, para. 231. 39 Case of the Kichwa Indigenous People of Sarayaku v. Ecuador. Merits and Reparations. Judgment of June 27, 2012. Series C No. 245, para. 323. See also 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. 246. 40