9 [a]mong indigenous peoples there is a communitarian tradition regarding a communal form of collective property of the land, in the sense that ownership of the land is not centered on an individual but rather on the group and its community. Indigenous groups, by the fact of their very existence, have the right to live freely in the own territory; the close ties of indigenous people with the land must be recognized and understood as the fundamental basis of their cultures, their spiritual life, their integrity, and their economic survival. For indigenous communities, relations to the land are not merely a matter of possession and production but a material and spiritual element which they must fully enjoy, even to preserve their cultural legacy and transmit it to future generations.23 40. In consideration of the above and national legislation, the Court established that “the members of the Awas Tingni Community have a communal property right to the lands they currently inhabit.”24 Since then, this acknowledgment of the right to collective property has been repeated in subsequent cases dealing with indigenous and tribal peoples and constitutes one of the most significant advances in human rights matters, for which this Court’s case law stands out. 41. Regarding those entitled to the right to communal property, despite the acknowledgment of the special characteristics of the indigenous culture in reference to the property of its land, the Court considered that those entitled to that right were the members of the indigenous or tribal Community and not the Community itself. Thus, the violation to Article 21 of the American Convention was declared in detriment of the members of the Community,25 who were generally identified, but also referred to simply based on this condition.26 42. This posture assumed by the Court was in agreement with the idea in force at that time according to which human rights were always only individual rights, even when referring to indigenous or tribal peoples. In this line of ideas, the United Nations Human Rights Committee established, regarding Article 27 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, that: “persons belonging to these minorities [ethnic, religious, or linguistic] shall not be denied the right, in community with the other members of their group, that corresponds to them” and that the mentioned Article “establishes and recognizes a right which is conferred on individuals belonging to minority groups.”27 Case of the Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community v. Nicaragua. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of August 31, 2001. Series C No. 79, para. 149. 24 Case of the Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community v. Nicaragua. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of August 31, 2001. Series C No. 79, para. 153. 23 Cfr. Case of the Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community v. Nicaragua. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of August 31, 2001. Series C No. 79, para. 155; Case of the Moiwana Community v. Suriname. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of June 15, 2005. Series C No. 124, para. 176; Case of the Yakye Axa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of June 17, 2005. Series C No. 125, para. 189, and Case of the Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of March 29, 2006. Series C No. 146, para. 204; Case of the Saramaka People v. Suriname. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 28, 2007. Series C No. 172, para. 189, and Case of the Xákmok Kásek Indigenous Community v. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of August 24, 2010. Series C No. 214, para. 278. 25 Cfr. Case of the Saramaka People v. Suriname. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 28, 2007. Series C No. 172, para. 188: “given the size and geographic diversity of the Saramaka people and, particularly, the collective nature of reparations to be ordered in the present case, the Court does not find it necessary in the instant case to individually name the members of the Saramaka people in order to recognize them as injured party. Nevertheless, the Court observes that the members of the Saramaka people are identifiable in accordance with Saramaka customary law.” 26 United Nations, Human Rights Committee, CCPR/C/21/Rev.l/Add.S, of April 26, 1994, para. 1. 27 General Comment No. 23, U.N. Doc.