78 145. Article 21(1) of the Convention provides that “[t]he law may subordinate [the] use and enjoyment [of property] to the interest of society.” The necessity of legally established restrictions will depend on whether they are geared toward satisfying an imperative public interest; it is insufficient to prove, for example, that the law fulfills a useful or timely purpose. Proportionality is based on the restriction being closely adjusted to the attainment of a legitimate objective, interfering as little as possible with the effective exercise of the restricted right. Finally, for the restrictions to be compatible with the Convention, they must be justified by collective objectives that, because of their importance, clearly prevail over the necessity of full enjoyment of the restricted right.198 146. When they apply these standards to clashes between private property and claims for ancestral property by the members of indigenous communities, the States must assess, on a case by case basis, the restrictions that would result from recognizing one right over the other. Thus, for example, the States must take into account that indigenous territorial rights encompass a broader and different concept that relates to the collective right to survival as an organized people, with control over their habitat as a necessary condition for reproduction of their culture, for their own development and to carry out their life aspirations. Property of the land ensures that the members of the indigenous communities preserve their cultural heritage. 147. Disregarding the ancestral right of the members of the indigenous communities to their territories could affect other basic rights, such as the right to cultural identity and to the very survival of the indigenous communities and their members. 148. On the other hand, restriction of the right of private individuals to private property might be necessary to attain the collective objective of preserving cultural identities in a democratic and pluralist society, in the sense given to this by the American Convention; and it could be proportional, if fair compensation is paid to those affected pursuant to Article 21(2) of the Convention. 149. This does not mean that every time there is a conflict between the territorial interests of private individuals or of the State and those of the members of the indigenous communities, the latter must prevail over the former. When States are unable, for concrete and justified reasons, to adopt measures to return the traditional territory and communal resources to indigenous populations, the compensation granted must be guided primarily by the meaning of the land for them (supra paras. 131, 135 and 139). 150. In this regard, Article 16(4) of ILO Convention No. 169, when it refers to the return of indigenous peoples to territories from which they were displaced, states that When such return is not possible, [...] these peoples shall be provided in all possible cases with lands of quality and legal status at least equal to that of the lands previously occupied by them, suitable to provide for their present needs and future development. Where the peoples concerned express a preference for compensation in money or in kind, they shall be so compensated under appropriate guarantees. 198 See (mutatis mutandi) Case of Ricardo Canese, supra note 179, para. 96; Case of Herrera Ulloa, supra note 181, para. 127, and Case of Ivcher Bronstein, supra note 176, para. 155.