7 rules, and legal system of the indigenous peoples concerned.”16 In this same sense, Articles 15 and 16 of Convention 169 of the ILO refer to compensations of which the peoples or communities are the beneficiaries. 28. The legal concept of collective reparation corresponds to the understanding that: i) indigenous communities are entitled to human rights; ii) these rights are different to the rights of each member of the Community and to the addition of these, and iii) these rights are not assimilable to the collective rights of other social groups.17 Additionally, we must recall that the damage suffered by an indigenous or tribal community is collective, but this does not mean it is less concrete. The difference with the damage suffered by an individual is that collective damage is caused to a group as a whole and it is not comparable to the sum of individual damages. 29. After having pointed out some of the elements of a collective reparation, it is especially important to emphasize the difference between this reparation and the States’ general duties in human rights’ issues. The beneficiaries of these State obligations are generally citizens and other people under the State’s jurisdiction. Similarly, the State can implement public policies addressed to favoring certain groups in dealing with social and economic inequalities. 30. For example, Article 2 of Convention 169 of the ILO establishes the States’ duty to adopt measures that, inter alia, promote “full realization of the social, economic, and cultural rights of these peoples with respect for their social and cultural identity, their customs and traditions and their institutions; and […] that assist the members of the people concerned to eliminate socio-economic gaps that may exist between indigenous and other members of the national community, in a manner compatible with their aspirations and ways of life.” These types of measures are directed to improving the quality of life and general wellbeing of the members of indigenous and tribal peoples and, therefore, can have a compensating effect. However, they cannot be confused with collective reparation. 31. In this case, the measure of reparation ordered consisting in the creation of a Community development fund is not addressed to the State implementing measures to improve the life situation of the Garífuna Community of Triunfo de la Cruz and the other residents of the area. The aforementioned is, in the end, a permanent obligation of the State regarding all its citizens and Garífuna citizens in particular. 32. The main difference between a collective reparation and a public policy addressed to economic and social development lies in the fact that the objective of the first one is to repair a specific damage caused by a violation perpetrated by the State of a right included in the American Convention, in detriment of the Community and its members, while the second one is addressed to implementing a general obligation of the State in human rights matters (specifically economic, social, and cultural rights). 16 See also Articles 20(2) and 32(3) of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. 17 Constitutional Court of Colombia, judgment T-514 of 2009.