VII.4: Freedom of thought and expression, political rights, right to personal integrity and right to the protection of the family (Articles 13, 23, 5(1) and 17 of the American Convention). When appropriate, the said rights will be related to the obligation to respect and ensure rights, as well as to the obligation to adopt domestic legal provisions (Articles 1(1) and 2 of the American Convention). 155. The Court underlines that, in this case against Chile, the alleged violation of the right to communal property in relation to Article 21 of the American Convention has not been submitted to its consideration. However, the Court recalls the importance of the criteria it has developed in its case law in judgments in cases against Nicaragua,157 Paraguay,158 Suriname159 and Ecuador160 concerning the content and scope of the right to communal property, taking into account the close relationship of the indigenous peoples with their land. The Court has ruled on the State obligations to ensure this right, such as the official recognition of ownership by land delimitation, demarcation and titling, the return of indigenous lands, and the establishment of an effective remedy to decide the corresponding claims.161 The Court has also indicated that “the obligation to consult [the indigenous and tribal communities and peoples], in addition to constituting a treaty-based norm, is also a general principle of international law” and has emphasized the importance of the recognition of that right as “one of the fundamental guarantees to ensure the participation of the indigenous communities and peoples in the decisions concerning measures that affect their rights and, in particular, their right to communal property.”162 These are criteria that States must observe when respecting and ensuring the rights of the indigenous peoples and their members in the domestic sphere. VII.1 – PRINCIPLE OF LEGALITY (ARTICLE 9 OF THE AMERICAN CONVENTION) AND RIGHT TO THE PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE (ARTICLE 8(2)) OF THE AMERICAN CONVENTION, IN RELATION TO THE OBLIGATION TO RESPECT AND ENSURE RIGHTS AND THE OBLIGATION TO ADOPT DOMESTIC LEGAL PROVISIONS A) Arguments of the Commission and of the parties 156. The Commission affirmed that criminal laws must be worded in precise and unambiguous language that narrowly defines the wrongful offense and exactly determines its elements and the factors that distinguish it from other acts that do not constitute wrongful 157 This began, above all, with the 2001 judgment in the Case of the Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community v. Nicaragua, in which, using an evolutive interpretation of Article 21 of the American Convention, the Court affirmed that this article protects the right to communal property of the members of indigenous communities. Cf. Case of the Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community v. Nicaragua. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 31, 2001. Series C No. 79. 158 Cf. Case of the Yakye Axa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay, paras. 125 and 137; Case of the Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of March 29, 2006. Series C No. 146, paras. 118 and 121, and Case of the Xákmok Kásek Indigenous Community. v. Paraguay. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 24, 2010 Series C No. 214, paras. 85 to 87. 159 Cf. Case of the Moiwana Community v. Suriname. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 15, 2005. Series C No. 124, para. 131, and Case of the Saramaka People v. Suriname. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 28, 2007. Series C No. 172, paras. 87 to 91. 160 Cf. Case of the Kichwa Indigenous People of Sarayaku v. Ecuador. Merits and reparations. Judgment of June 27, 2012. Series C No. 245, paras. 145 to 147. 161 Cf. Case of the Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community v. Nicaragua. Merits, reparations and costs, para. 153; Case of the Moiwana Community v. Suriname, para. 209; Case of the Yakye Axa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay, paras. 95 and 96; Case of the Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay, para. 108, and Case of the Xákmok Kásek Indigenous Community. v. Paraguay, para. 131. 162 Cf. Case of the Kichwa Indigenous People of Sarayaku v. Ecuador, paras. 160 and 164. 52