3 today they are part of the history of international protection of human rights. Both precedents blazed the trail as far as the matters they dealt with are concerned. 6. When I verified, with particular unhappiness, in the subsequent Judgment on the merits of this Court, in the case of the Indigenous Community Yakye Axa v. Paraguay (merits, 2005), a serious step backwards in connection with the wide scope of the right to life, and besides a regrettable inconsistency by the Court in its new and restrictive construction, I put on the record my corporation opposition to what appeared to me —and still appears to me— an inadmissible regression. The clear warning against such step backwards in a Dissenting Opinion given in the abovementioned case of the Indigenous Community Yakye Axa (merits)8, appears to have echoed in the minds of the Court majority, that was careful not to repeat its mistake (that of operative paragraph No. 4 of such Judgement) and to rectify its untenable position in the instant Judgment on the case of the Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community. 7. In my recent Separate Opinion on the Interpretation of the Judgment on the case of the Indigenous Community Yakye Axa (2006), I underscored the importance I attach, in the circumstances of the case, to the final conveyance of their ancestral lands to the members of that Community (paras. 2-3 and 6-7), among other things, to the protect and preserve "their own cultural identity and, in the last resort, their fundamental right to life lato sensu (para. 13). In the instant Judgment in the case of the Sawhoyamaxa Community, the Court has correctly underscored the positive measures to protect and to preserve the underogable right to life (paras. 148-153), and in ordering reparations (including the return of the ancestral lands, paras. 206211), it has borne in mind the pressing need to preserve the cultural identity of the Community in question (paras. 218-219, 226 and 231). II. The Historical Roots to be Found in the Situation of Want Affecting the Members of the Community. 8. In fact, the injustice the members of the Sawhoyamaxa Community suffer is rooted in history. In its application of February 2, 2005, the IACHR reported that "An Anglican missionary wrote in 1910 that the Enxet in [the Chaco] area by then still lived as owners of all their territory, unaware of the fact that the Paraguayan State had sold their land to foreigners, without consulting them on the matter, let alone offering them compensation for it"9. In their independent brief on arguments, petitions and evidence, of May 5, 2005, the representatives of the victims (from the [non governmental] organization Tierraviva), added that "By the year 1950, practically all the Enxet territory was divided into estates and some minor land holdings bought by the Anglicans. The extensive system of land use established in Chaco tolerated indigenous presence on cattle-raising ranches, as either actual or potential cheap labor"10. 8 . Joint Dissenting Opinion of Judges A.A. Cançado Trindade and M.E. Ventura-Robles, paras. 1-24. 9 . Page 9, para. 38 of the abovementioned application. 10 . Page 8 of the abovementioned brief.