54 129. In order to determine whether such circumstances constitute the deprivation of a right to the use and enjoyment of property, naturally, this Court must first assess whether Moiwana Village belongs to the community members, bearing in mind the broad concept of property developed in the Tribunal’s jurisprudence. 130. The parties to the instant case are in agreement that the Moiwana community members do not possess formal legal title – neither collectively nor individually – to their traditional lands in and surrounding Moiwana Village. According to submissions from the representatives and Suriname, the territory formally belongs to the State in default, as no private individual or collectivity owns official title to the land. 131. Nevertheless, this Court has held that, in the case of indigenous communities who have occupied their ancestral lands in accordance with customary practices – yet who lack real title to the property – mere possession of the land should suffice to obtain official recognition of their communal ownership.71 That conclusion was reached upon considering the unique and enduring ties that bind indigenous communities to their ancestral territory. The relationship of an indigenous community with its land must be recognized and understood as the fundamental basis of its culture, spiritual life, integrity, and economic survival.72 For such peoples, their communal nexus with the ancestral territory is not merely a matter of possession and production, but rather consists in material and spiritual elements that must be fully integrated and enjoyed by the community, so that it may preserve its cultural legacy and pass it on to future generations.73 132. The Moiwana community members are not indigenous to the region; according to the proven facts, Moiwana Village was settled by N’djuka clans late in the 19th Century (supra paragraph 86(11)). Nevertheless, from that time until the 1986 attack, the community members lived in the area in strict adherence to N’djuka custom. Expert witness Thomas Polimé described the nature of their relationship to the lands in and around Moiwana Village: [the] N’djuka, like other indigenous and tribal peoples, have a profound and allencompassing relationship to their ancestral lands. They are inextricably tied to these lands and the sacred sites that are found there and their forced displacement has severed these fundamental ties. Many of the survivors and next of kin locate their point of origin in and around Moiwana Village. Their inability to maintain their relationships with their ancestral lands and its sacred sites has deprived them of a fundamental aspect of their identity and sense of well being. Without regular commune with these lands and sites, they are unable to practice and enjoy their cultural and religious traditions, further detracting from their personal and collective security and sense of well being. 133. In this way, the Moiwana community members, a N’djuka tribal people, possess an “all-encompassing relationship” to their traditional lands, and their concept of ownership regarding that territory is not centered on the individual, but rather on the community as a whole.74 Thus, this Court’s holding with regard to 71 Cf. Case of the Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community. Judgment of August 31, 2001. Series C No. 79, para. 151. 72 Cf. Case of the Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community, supra note 71, para. 149. 73 Cf. Case of the Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community, supra note 71, para. 149. 74 Cf. Case of the Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community, supra note 71, para. 149.