26 well as their communal concept of ownership, prompted the Court to apply to the tribal Moiwana community its jurisprudence regarding indigenous peoples and their right to communal property under Article 21 of the Convention.78 86. The Court sees no reason to depart from this jurisprudence in the present case. Hence, this Tribunal declares that the members of the Saramaka people are to be considered a tribal community, and that the Court’s jurisprudence regarding indigenous peoples’ right to property is also applicable to tribal peoples because both share distinct social, cultural, and economic characteristics, including a special relationship with their ancestral territories, that require special measures under international human rights law in order to guarantee their physical and cultural survival. B. THE RIGHT OF MEMBERS OF TRIBAL PEOPLES TO THE USE AND ENJOYMENT OF COMMUNAL PROPERTY IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLES 21, 1.1, AND 2 OF THE AMERICAN CONVENTION 87. The Court will now address whether Article 21 of the American Convention recognizes the rights of members of tribal peoples to the use and enjoyment of communal property. B.1) Right to communal property under Article 21 of the American Convention 88. This Court has previously addressed this issue and has consistently held that: the close ties the members of indigenous communities have with their traditional lands and the natural resources associated with their culture thereof, as well as the incorporeal elements deriving there from, must be secured under Article 21 of the American Convention.79 89. Likewise, in the Mayagna case, the Court considered that “Article 21 of the Convention protects the right to property[,] which includes, among others, the rights of members of […] indigenous communities within the framework of communal property.”80 Similarly, in the Sawhoyamaxa case, the Court considered “that indigenous communities might have a collective understanding of the concepts of property and possession, in the sense that ownership of the land ‘is not centered on an individual, but rather on the group and its community.’”81 Moreover, the Court held in the Yakye Axa case that “both the private property of individuals and communal property of the members of […] indigenous communities are protected by Article 21 of the American Convention.”82 90. The Court’s decisions to this effect have all been based upon the special relationship that members of indigenous and tribal peoples have with their territory, and on the need to protect their right to that territory in order to safeguard the physical and cultural survival of such peoples. In this sense, the Court has declared that: 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, [their relationship with] the land is not merely a matter 78 Cf. Case of the Moiwana Community, supra note 77, para. 133. Case of the Indigenous Community Sawhoyamaxa, supra note 75, para. 118. Cf. also Case of the Indigenous Community Yakye Axa, supra note 75, para. 137. 80 Case of The Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community, supra note 49, para. 148. 81 Case of the Indigenous Community Sawhoyamaxa, supra note 75, para. 120 (quoting Case of The Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community, supra note 49, para. 149). 82 Case of the Indigenous Community Yakye Axa, supra note 75, para. 143. 79