2 that nature have been awarded since 1990 does not mean that no procedure is in place. It only indicates the indigenous communities’ disinterest in seeking title to their lands. In the specific case of the Awas Tingni Community, it has never filed for a land deed with any competent authority. Instead, its measures were confined to attacking the logging concession mentioned previously. The only grounds for the allegation would have been if applications seeking title had been filed and then rejected. 8. The facts recounted in the preceding paragraphs show that articles 25 and 21 of the Convention, found to have been violated in the judgment of the Court, were not in fact violated. 9. As for the reparations that the Court agreed upon, I must go on record to state that as there was no violation of a Convention-protected right, Article 63 of the Convention does not apply. Nor is it proper to agree upon an indemnity in the absence of damages. There were no damages in the instant case: no material damages because there was no logging in the concession area; no moral damages, because the fact that the lands were not demarcated did no harm to the traditional way of life of the indigenous people in the Awas Tigni Community. Concerning the reimbursement of costs and expenses, in my judgment such damages should only be awarded when the State has had no rational reason for contesting the application. 10. The foregoing notwithstanding, it has to be said that the Court has been fair in setting the amounts to be awarded as compensation, and has taken into consideration the difficult economic situation that Nicaragua is experiencing. Alejandro Montiel-Argüello Judge ad hoc Manuel E. Ventura-Robles Secretario