8 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 development fund” for those purposes,21 which it has repeated in other cases related to indigenous peoples. 22 38. Now, the meaning of this measure of reparation resides in the specific relationship that exists between: i) the rights of the indigenous peoples that are exercised in a communal manner, especially the right to collective property, ii) the bearers of those rights and, therefore, the beneficiaries of the measure of reparation when they are violated, and iii) the specific damage caused by the violation of those rights. 39. Regarding the right to collective property, in the Case of Mayagna v. Nicaragua it was acknowledged that the protection provided by Article 21 of the American Convention extends to the collective property of indigenous peoples. In this sense, the Court stated that: 19 Para. 295 of the judgment. 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. 20 Cfr. Case of the Yakye Axa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of June 17, 2005. Series C No. 125, para. 205. This judgment also ordered the creation of a fund destined to the acquisition of the lands to be handed over to the Yakye Axa Community (para. 218). 21 Cfr. Case of the Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of March 29, 2006. Series C No. 146, para. 224; Case of Escué Zapata v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of July 4, 2007. Series C No. 165, para. 168; Case of the Saramaka People v. Suriname. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 28, 2007. Series C No. 172, para. 201; Case of the Xákmok Kásek Indigenous Community v. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of August 24, 2010. Series C No. 214, para. 323; Case of the Kichwa Indigenous People of Sarayaku v. Ecuador. Merits and reparations. Judgment of June 27, 2012. Series C No. 245, paras. 317 and 323, and Case of the Kuna Indigenous People of Madungandí and the Emberá Indigenous People of Bayano and their Members v. Panama. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of October 14, 2014. Series C No. 284, paras. 240 and 247 (in these two last cases the pecuniary reparation for material and unmaterial damages was given to an existing association of the Sarayaku People and to the representatives of the indigenous communities, respectively). See also Case of the Plan de Sánchez Massacre v. Guatemala. Reparations. Judgment of November 19, 2004. Series C No. 116, para. 104 (regarding the endowment of resources for the collective memory of members of the Community or their representatives). 22