Land rights One of the key features of ‘indigenous peoples’ as a distinct sub-state group in international law is their cultural and spiritual attachment to ancestral lands. This special attachment is at the basis of the recognition of indigenous peoples’ right to collectively own their traditional lands under international law. As nonindigenous minorities lack such a cultural characteristic, the recognition of a collective right to own ancestral lands has so far remained confined to the indigenous rights regime. Accordingly, this section will focus specifically on indigenous peoples’ land rights. As the following sub-sections will show, the IACtHR and IACHR, the ILO and various UN human rights treaty bodies have regularly dealt with indigenous land rights in recent years. The ACHPR, instead, has only recently rendered its very first decision on the issue, while the ECtHR has yet to do so. The inter-American system of human rights The Inter-American system of human rights has been at the forefront in the protection and promotion of the rights of indigenous peoples. The pronouncements of the IACtHR and IACHR have significantly contributed, in particular, to the development and identification of standards concerning indigenous peoples’ rights to their traditional lands. The IACtHR can decide cases which are sent to it by states or by the IACHR. Its scope of action is limited to those states that are party to the InterAmerican Convention298 and have accepted its compulsory jurisdiction. By contrast, the IACHR supervises the implementation of both the IACHR and the American Declaration on the Rights and Duties of Man (American Declaration). It can receive petitions from individuals, groups of individuals and NGOs complaining of violations of either instrument. In this regard, it is worth noting that the American Declaration applies to all member states of the Organization of American States (OAS). As we shall see, the IACtHR and IACHR have thus far produced a clear and innovative jurisprudence on the issue of indigenous peoples’ land rights, providing a solid legal background for further litigation in the area. 30 The right to collective ownership of ancestral lands and its applicability The fundamental principle established by the IACtHR is that Article 21 of the ACHR on the right to property also protects the right of the members of indigenous communities to collective ownership of their ancestral lands.299 This groundbreaking interpretation, introduced for the first time in the 2001 Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community v Nicaragua 300 case and later confirmed in a number of equally significant cases,301 essentially stems from the preliminary recognition of the special relationship existing between indigenous peoples and their land.302 On this basis, the IACtHR held that members of those groups who are characterized by, inter alia, a traditional collective form of organization, a spiritual relationship with their ancestral lands and a communal system of ownership of the said lands, are entitled to the protection provided by Article 21. Crucially, the IACtHR also found that, in order to claim the right to ownership, indigenous peoples do not need to show evidence of a formal title to property obtained by the relevant state.303 Instead, by virtue of the interplay between indigenous customary law and national law, the right may be legitimately claimed by simply possessing the land.304 Importantly, the IACHR has taken the same approach with regard to Article XXIII of the American Declaration,305 holding that the international human right of property encompasses the collective property of indigenous peoples as defined by their own customs and traditions.306 In the IACHR’s view, any determination of indigenous peoples’ rights should be done in consultation with indigenous peoples. In particular, the IACHR has emphasized the state’s duty to identify and demarcate indigenous peoples’ lands in consultation with indigenous peoples and with due regard for their customary land tenure system.307 Furthermore, both the IACtHR and the IACHR extended the applicability of these provisions to certain Afro-descendant communities, on the basis of a number of considerations including their special attachment to a specific territory and their cultural distinctiveness.308 The following sub-sections will further investigate the content of the indigenous land rights regime developed by these two bodies. Before doing so, however, it is important MINORITY GROUPS AND LITIGATION: A REVIEW OF DEVELOPMENTS IN INTERNATIONAL AND REGIONAL JURISPRUDENCE