55 Compensation and Investment: Kuna Comarca of Madungandí and Emberá Collective Lands of Piriatí, Ipetí, and Maje Cordillera” was prepared at the request of the authorities of the Kuna Comarca of Madungandí and of the Emberá of Bayano. 204. The Commission also notes that the State indicated, based on a report by the director general of the Corporación del Bayano, that compensation was paid from 1974 to 1978 to seven 290 communities (Maje, Pintupo, Aguas Claras, Río Diablo, Saderhuila, Ibebsigana, and Ipetí). It added that in 1999 “the Darién sustainable development program, for example, found that the compensation 291 payments were made for three years, of the eight promised.” 205. In view of the foregoing, the IACHR considers that the relationship between the alleged victims and the state authorities in respect of the payment of compensation was a relationship the contours of which were determined by legally recognized rights. Moreover, it observes that the 1946 292 Constitution of Panama, at Article 46 , and subsequently the 1972 Constitution, at Article 44, contained 293 the state obligation to pay compensation for the expropriation of private property. Nonetheless, as has been proved, these legal obligations, with the rights that derived from them, were not carried out; rather, the State has not shown, after four decades, that it has paid just and prompt compensation in its entirety to the alleged victims. 206. The IACHR also recalls that even though referring to individual property the InterAmerican Court has explained that “just compensation” presupposes that it be “prompt, adequate and 294 effective.” In addition the Court has understood that in cases of expropriation of private property – whether individual or collective, indigenous or non-indigenous – by the State, the payment of just compensation is not only a right under Article 21 of the American Convention, but also a general principle 295 of international law, widely reiterated by the international case-law. 207. It is not up to the IACHR to determine the amount to be paid the alleged victims, but to recall that, as the Inter-American Court has noted: “Selection and delivery of alternative lands, payment of 296 fair compensation, or both, are not subject to purely discretionary criteria of the State.” Rather, such a decision should be reached by consensus with the indigenous peoples affected, ensuring their effective participation in keeping with their own procedures for consultation, values, uses, and customary law. 208. According to the standards in the Inter-American system, to this end one must consider that the alienation of the ancestral territories of the Kuna people of Madungandí and the Emberá of Bayano entailed the loss of sacred places, forests, dwellings, crops, animals, and medicinal plants that not only had a material value for these indigenous peoples but that were an essential part of their cultural identity and traditional way of life. Based on the facts proven in this report, the IACHR is of the view that 290 Communication from the State of June 29, 2001. p. 6. 291 Communication from the State of June 29, 2001. p. 6. 292 1946 Constitution, Article 46. “For reasons of public utility and social interest defined in the Law, there may be expropriation, by judicial judgment and prior compensation.” 293 1972 Constitution, Article 44. “Private property implies obligations for the owner by reason of the social function it must perform. For reasons of public utility or social interest defined in the Law, there may be expropriation by means of special proceedings and compensation.” The IACHR observes that the equivalent of this provision was included in the subsequent constitutions, namely: Article 45 of the 1972 Constitution, with amendments in 1978, 1983, and 1994; and Article 48 of the 1972 Constitution, with amendments in 2004. 294 I/A Court H.R., Case of Salvador Chiriboga v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objection and Merits. Judgment of May 6, 2008. Series C No. 179. para. 96. 295 I/A Court H.R., Case of Salvador Chiriboga v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objection and Merits. Judgment of May 6, 2008. Series C No. 179. paras. 96-97. 296 I/A Court H.R., Case of the Yakye Axa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 17, 2005. Series C No. 125, para. 151.