A/HRC/14/38 not yet grasped the lessons learned with so much suffering by previous generations. Yet, the exercise was to be pursued, as its purpose corresponded to an ancient human aspiration, which had been present in the human conscience for centuries. 36. With that consideration in mind, Mr. Cançado Trindade addressed the question of the assertion of the peoples’ right to peace before contemporary international courts and tribunals. He concentrated on the experience of two such tribunals, in which he had served or was currently serving as judge, namely, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights and the International Court of Justice, respectively. That experience showed that the rights of peoples had been acknowledged and asserted before contemporary international tribunals. The Inter-American Court of Human Rights, in the case of the Community Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni v. Nicaragua (2001), had extended protection to the right of all the members of an indigenous community to their communal property of their historical lands. Furthermore, three other decisions had had a direct bearing on the rights of peoples, their cultural identity and their very survival, namely, in Yakye Axa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay (2005–2006), Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay (2005–2006), as well as in Moiwana Community v. Suriname (2005–2006), which had ruled on the case of the Moiwana massacre. Mr. Cançado Trindade added that such late jurisprudential development would have been unthinkable for the draftsmen of the American Convention on Human Rights. Massacres no longer fell into oblivion. Atrocities victimizing whole communities, or segments of the population, were being brought before contemporary international tribunals, for the establishment not only of the international criminal responsibility of individuals, but also of the international responsibility of States. That indicated that there had been clear advances in the realization of international justice in recent years, in cases of factual and evidentiary complexities. 37. Turning to the pertinent practice, in particular the pleadings before the International Court of Justice, Mr. Cançado Trindade recalled that the right of peoples to live in peace had been acknowledged and asserted before the Court in a number of cases. He also referred to the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, as well as of the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights. 38. Finally, Mr. Cançado Trindade focused on the peoples’ right to peace and the lessons of history. After drawing extensively upon pertinent writings of some of the most prominent and influential historians of the twentieth century, he advocated a systemic approach to future consideration of the theme, relating the peoples’ right to peace to other rights of peoples, and further relating the human right to peace to rights of peoples. He added that, current shortcomings notwithstanding, rights of peoples had lately been brought before contemporary international tribunals, including the International Court of Justice, despite the strictly inter-State character of the contentious procedure of the latter. He contended that the peoples’ right to peace was justiciable, and that there was a path to be pursued to that end in the years to come. 39. William Schabas, Director of the Irish Centre for Human Rights, indicated that there was clearly no consensus yet concerning both the definition of the right to peace and its regulation under international law. The fact that Human Rights Council resolution 11/4 had been adopted with the opposition of a number of States, most from one geographic region, illustrated that lack of consensus. 40. Mr. Schabas recalled that there were important negotiations being undertaken on the definition of the crime of aggression in the context of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Those negotiations would continue during the Review Conference of the Rome Statute in 2010. Some member States had not yet expressed their views and it was uncertain what the final decision of the review conference would be. Yet Mr. Schabas considered that it was more disturbing that the major non-governmental organizations GE.10-12138 11