At the national and international level, it has been recognized that the indigenous peoples are subject to collective rights. This means that they are not protected merely as individuals, but also as members of communities with which they share particular values, traditions, backgrounds, and ways of life connected to geographical areas and territories. In this sense, authors such as Dwight G. Newman de ne the collective rights as those which are "held by indigenous groups per se rather than by individuals".

The "recognition of the fact that individual rights cannot be realized unless groups hold collective rights" derives from the notion that humans are social beings that belong to certain groups and communities. In the case of indigenous peoples, the collective rights gain more importance because the individual universal rights have not been enough to ensure their economic, social and cultural needs. For these reasons, it has been recognized that the indigenous and tribal peoples are holders of collective rights.

Certainly, the right to property is a great example to understand the relationship between individual rights and collective rights when indigenous and tribal communities are involved. Currently, it is well known that this right has a double dimension. On one hand, there is a traditional individual understanding of this right. On the other hand, there is a communal approach that "includes, among others, the rights of members of the indigenous communities within the framework of communal property". In this line, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights has analyzed the right to property in a broad sense. Within the Inter-American System, the Court has insisted on the importance to protect the indigenous right to collective property being conscious that among the indigenous groups "there is a communitarian tradition regarding a communal form of collective property of the land, in the sense that ownership of the land is not centered on an individual but rather on the group and its community". Likewise, the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights has recognized that a "key characteristic for most [indigenous peoples] is that the survival of their particular way of life depends on access and rights to their traditional lands and the natural resources thereon". From those international standards, it can be understood that the indigenous’ collective right to property is related to their economic, social and cultural rights. The access and enjoyment of their collective land and natural resources are closely linked to their cultural, social and economic survival.

International organizations such as the Inter-American Court of Human Rights has recognized that the analysis of the property right has to take into consideration the social, economic and cultural particularities of these communities. The Court concluded that for the indigenous peoples the "lack of their traditional lands" and therefore, the violation of their right to property, affects their "cultural characteristics and practices". By recognizing the special relationship that these communities have with their territories and their cultural heritage the Court has accepted the importance of the collective property in the protection of the indigenous and tribal peoples’ right to enjoy culture. According to the Court, to guarantee "the right of indigenous peoples to communal property, it is necessary to take into account that the land is closely linked to their oral expressions and traditions, their customs and languages, their arts and rituals, their knowledge and practices in connection with nature, culinary art, customary law, dress, philosophy, and values".

In addition, in the Case of the Kichwa Indigenous People of Sarayaku v. Ecuador the Inter-American Court linked the indigenous rights to collective property and natural resources with the right to health. The decision clearly explained how the violation of the right to property put these peoples in "poor or infrahuman living conditions and increase the vulnerability to diseases and epidemics" generating conditions of extreme "vulnerability that can lead to the violation of various human rights". 

In the same line, when analyzing the right to property and its relationship with the economic, social and cultural rights, the African Commission has gone beyond the Inter-American Court. This body has openly recognized that the right to property is by itself an economic, social and cultural right enshrined in the African Charter. The Commission has held that the right to property protects the individuals and peoples' right to possess material things as well as any "right which may be part of a person’s patrimony. The concept [even] includes the protection of a legitimate expectation of the acquisition of property".

This wide understanding of the right to property has been used by the Commission to analyze some economic, social and cultural rights within the scope of article 14 of the African Charter. For instance, in the Case of The Social and Economic Rights Action Center and the Center for Economic and Social Rights v. Nigeria, better known as Ogoni case, the African Commission considered
that the removal of people from "their homes violates Article 14 of the African Charter, as well as the right to adequate housing which, although not explicitly expressed in the African Charter, is also guaranteed by Article 14". To reach this conclusion the Commission has recognized that all human rights are interdependent and interconnected. This case analyzes the right to housing and shelter as part of the right to property, in combination with the article 16 of the same treaty which talks about the right to enjoy the best attainable state of physical and mental health. Furthermore, when deciding the Case of Endorois v. Kenya, the Commission has considered the unique relationship between the right to collective property and the cultural rights of the indigenous communities. It has recognized that the indigenous peoples have a special relationship with their lands which is essential to maintain their traditions and background. The African Commission concluded that the "Lake Bogoria and the Monchongoi Forest are central to the Endorois’ way of life and without access to their ancestral land, the Endorois are unable to fully exercise their cultural and religious rights and feel disconnected from their land and ancestors".