51 V. LEGAL ANALYSIS A. Preliminary matters 1. Delimitation of the legal dispute with respect to the territories of the alleged victims 188. The ancestral or traditional presence of the Kuna indigenous people of Madungandí and the Emberá in the Bayano zone has not been controverted by the State, nor has it presented evidence that contradicts or challenges the evidence that shows their long-standing ties to the land. To the contrary, the State has expressly recognized that the indigenous peoples who are the alleged victims have property rights over the lands they occupy. Accordingly, the State has repeatedly expressed – albeit with interruptions – its express will to formally adjudicate that property in the case pending, and to provide “territorial security” (“seguridad territorial”) to the indigenous peoples, in keeping with the provisions of the Constitution, the domestic legislation, and the commitments that were explicitly made to the alleged victims. In this regard, the IACHR understands that what is at issue in the instant matter is not the property rights of these indigenous peoples over the territories they occupy, but the delivery of a legal title – in the case of the communities of the Emberá people – as well as their delimitation, demarcation, and effective protection. 189. In addition, the IACHR observes that one aspect around which the parties’ arguments have revolved refers to the rights that non-indigenous third persons who occupy territories claimed by the alleged victims could have, based on the agreement of March 31, 1995, signed with traditional authorities of the Kuna people of Madungandí and approved by the national government, and on Article 21 of Law 24 of January 12, 1996, which creates the Kuna Comarca of Madungandí. It is not up to the IACHR to determine the rights of the non-indigenous inhabitants of the area, who are not a party in the instant case, nor to rule on the specific way in which the process of eviction and relocation of the non-indigenous persons who remain in the zone should be carried out. What the IACHR considers it appropriate to indicate is that the State of Panama must guarantee, for the alleged victims in the instant case, an exclusively indigenous territory that is formally recognized, demarcated, delimited, and effectively protected, in keeping with its international obligations. 2. Considerations on the competence of the IACHR ratione temporis 190. Throughout the years relevant to the present case, as will be noted in the following paragraphs, the State of Panama had obligations relating to indigenous property rights both internationally, under the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man, the American Convention on Human Rights, ILO Convention 107 on indigenous and tribal populations; as well as internally, under its own legal and constitutional regime. 191. Based on the evidence in the record, the IACHR has considered as proven a number of facts that occurred prior to May 8, 1978, the date on which Panama ratified the American Convention, which refer mainly to the eviction of the population and the flooding of the ancestral territories of the alleged victims. The IACHR considers that while those facts occurred prior to the State’s ratification of the American Convention, the obligations which emerged from these acts, which consist of the payment of economic compensation and the recognition of rights to the lands granted, persist even after that date, and have been complemented by subsequent state acts to which reference has been made, as well as by international commitments assumed by the State. Accordingly, this case is centered on the failure to comply with such obligations, as well as the lack of a response by the State in light of the impact on indigenous territories subsequent to the agreements and initial recognitions. B. Indigenous property rights – Articles 8, 21, and 25 of the Convention, in relation to its Articles 1(1) and 2