8 33. The judgment stated that the measure of reparation of the creation of a Community development fund is the result of a violation by the State of several rights enshrined in the Convention (namely the rights included in Articles 2, 21, 8, and 25 of the same). Therefore, the implementation of this Fund cannot substitute or replace the public policy measures taken, or to be taken, by the State to improve the situation of the Garífuna Community of Triunfo de la Cruz and the other Hondurans who live in the area in question in the judgment. Said public policy measures are the State’s responsibility and are necessary to improve the quality of life of the residents of the region, as well as to avoid conflicts between them. Therefore, these public policies can promote a peaceful coexistence between the different ethnic groups that live in the country (see my comments infra on the delimitation of lands as a social issue). 34. This means that the creation of the Fund is a pecuniary measure of reparation additional to the mentioned general obligations of the State. This was expressed in the judgment when the Court stated that the Fund must be used to carry out works and services of a collective interest “independently of the public works put aside in the national budget for that region.”18 Similarly, it was considered that the Community development fund is “additional to any other present or future benefit that may correspond to the Community of Triunfo de la Cruz in relation to the State’s general development duties.”19 35. Therefore, the State cannot equate this measure of reparation with its general duties in human rights matters. A similar confusion could result in a situation in which no specific compensation would be granted to the Garífuna Community of Triunfo de la Cruz, or the public policies addressed to improving their living conditions could be weakened. If this were the case, the State would fail to comply with its duty to fulfill the measures of reparation ordered in the judgment. (ii) The development of the Court’s case law regarding the juridical personality of indigenous or tribal peoples and collective damage 36. The general rule when human rights of indigenous and tribal peoples are violated, causing a collective damage, must be to grant a collective reparation and not a compensation to individuals or its members. This understanding has also been reflected in the development of the Court’s case law on this matter. 37. In the Case of the Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community v. Nicaragua the Court ordered the State, as a pecuniary measure of reparation for non-pecuniary damage, to invest a certain amount in “works or services of collective interest for the benefit of the Community.”20 Subsequently, in the Case of the Yakye Axa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay it ordered the creation of a “community 18 Case of Escué Zapata v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of July 4, 2007. Series C No. 165, para. 168. 19 Para. 295 of the judgment. 20 Case of the Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community v. Nicaragua. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of August 31, 2001. Series C No. 79, para. 167.