to obtain official recognition of their communal ownership and the subsequent registration thereof” (para. 131). It further stated that the members of the Moiwana Community should be deemed “legitimate owners” of their “traditional lands,” of which they have been deprived of this right to the present date as a consequence of the 1986 massacre and of the subsequent failure by the State to investigate those occurrences adequately (para. 134). The Court finally ordered that “the State shall adopt such legislative, administrative and other measures as are necessary to ensure the property rights of the members of the Moiwana Community in relation to their traditional territories, from which they were expelled, and provide for the members´use and enjoyment of those territories. These measures shall include the creation of an effective mechanism for the delimitation, demarcation, and titling of said traditional territories, in the terms of paragraphs 209-211 of this Judgment” (operative paragraph No. 3). 6. Shortly afterwards, in the instant case of the Indigenous Community Yakye Axa v. Paraguay (Judgment of June 17, 2005), the victims´representatives claimed that “the right of the indigenous communities to the communal property ownership of their lands is made effective,” inter alia, “through the State´s obligation to delimit, demarcate and title the territory of the respective villages” (para. 121(d)). The Court, in turn, acknowledged the link of the “right to communal property of the indigenous communities over their traditional territories and the natural resources tied to their culture” with the term “goods” as stated in Article 21 of the Convention and gave value to the guarantee traditional expressions, customary law, the philosophy and the values of such communities (paras. 137 and 154), and ordered the State to “identify the traditional territory of the members of the Indigenous Yakye Axa Community and provide it free of charge” (operative paragraph No. 6). 7. I understand that the definite transfer of the lands to the members of the Indigenous Yakye Axa Community is a legitimate and necessary form of nonpecuniary reparation in the circumstances of the cas d’espèce, which the InterAmerican Court has full authority to order in the light of the provisions of Article 63(2) of the American Convention. It is not just a matter of a mere restitutio, turning back to the vulnerable statu quo ante of the victimized Community, but also ensuring the guarantee of non-repetition of the particularly serious harmful events that led to the victims´displacement (and to the death of some of them). 8. The definite transfer of the communal lands has in the instant case consequences which are quite more far-reaching than one can prima facie anticipate, since, in the last resort, it is a question of survival of the cultural identity of the members of such Community. Only through such measure will their fundamental right to life lato sensu, including their cultural identity, be properly protected. 9. The universal juridical conscience, which, in my opinion, is the material source of all Law, has evolved in such a way as to recognize this urgent need. This is evidenced by the significant triad of the UNESCO Conventions, namely, the 1972 Convention on the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage; the 2003 Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage; and, more recently, the 2005 Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions. 10. The 1972 UNESCO Convention in its Preamble warns that the deterioration or disappearance of any item of the cultural or natural heritage regrettably weakens the heritage of “all the nations of the world”, since parts of the cultural or natural