5 18. These third parties are not a part of the litigation of the case before the Court and therefore any possible violations to their rights are not part of the factual framework of the case submitted to the Court and cannot be resolved by it due to formal considerations of the design of the Inter-American Human Rights System. 19. Taking into consideration all the above, it is desirable that the Court continue with its practice of carrying out this type of diligences in cases in which it is useful or necessary to clarify the factual situation, contribute to the achievement of the purposes of Judgments issued by the Court, especially in what refers to the determination of possible violations to human rights and the resolution of the controversies presented. Likewise, it may be convenient, and on occasions necessary, to consider the possibility of carrying out these types of judicial diligences during the monitoring of compliance of Judgments by the Court, precisely to verify the situation in situ after the issuing of the judgment and to guarantee that its implementation at a domestic level does not result in activities that may damage third parties. C. The logic of the collective measure of reparation consisting in the creation of a Community development fund 20. In the judgment, the Court ordered as a measure of reparation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages a collective compensation through a Community development fund. In the following paragraphs, I would like to present some aspects regarding the legal nature of this measure of reparation and, specifically, point out the distinction or difference between this measure of reparation and the States’ permanent and general obligations to guarantee its citizens’ human rights. 21. For these purposes, below we will analyze: i) the difference between the collective reparation and the States’ general obligations in matters of human rights; ii) the Court’s case law regarding the juridical personality of indigenous or tribal peoples and collective damage, and iii) aspects regarding the administration of the Community Development Fund. (i) The difference between collective reparation and the States’ general obligations in matters of human rights 22. In the judgment, the following measure of reparation was ordered: Given that the State was found responsible of the violation of Articles 2, 21, 8, and 25 of the Convention, as well as that due to the fact that the variety of measures of reparation requested by the representatives seek to, as a whole, benefit the Community of Triunfo de la Cruz, the Court considers it appropriate to analyze those measures in light of the creation of a Community development fund as compensation for the pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage suffered by the members of the Community. In this sense, this 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.13 23. Additionally, taking into consideration: “i) dispossession of their territory; ii) the damages caused to it, and iii) that indigenous people have the right to conservation and protection of the environment and the productive capacity of their territories and natural resources,” the Court established that “the Fund must be destined, pursuant to the agreements reached with the Community of Triunfo de la Cruz, to: i) developing projects 13 Para. 295 of the judgment.