17 Article 2: For administrative purposes, the regions occupied at present by the indigenous tribes shall be divided into four Comarcas thusly: Comarca of San Blas, Comarca of Bayano and the Darién, Comarca of Tabasará, and Comarca of Bocas del Toro Article 3: The Comarca of San Blas shall be made up of the indigenous reserves of San Blas. The Comarca of Bayano and the Darién shall include those regions currently occupied by the Nagandí and Chocó tribes and the indigenous reserve of Bayano. The Comarca of Tabasará shall be constituted by the regions occupied at present by the principal groups of the tribe of the Guaymíes in the Provinces of Veraguas and Chiriquí.… The Comarca of Bocas del Toro shall be constituted by the indigenous reserves of the Province of Bocas del Toro. The physical boundaries of these Comarcas shall be set when the geodesic work currently under way is completed. 76. Accordingly, included in the Comarca of Bayano and Darién were the Kuna indigenous peoples who constituted the Indigenous Reserve of Bayano and the Chocó who inhabited the zone, a 69 group to which the Emberá belong. According to the information produced by the parties, the Reserve of Bayano and Darién occupied precisely the lands where the reservoir formed by the hydroelectric dam 70 would sit. Nonetheless, despite Law 18 the Comarca of Bayano and Darién was not constituted. 2. Construction of the Bayano Hydroelectric Complex and the Pan American Highway; Agreements of Farallón, Cimarrón, and Majecito (1963-1979) 77. In 1963 the Panamanian State proposed the construction of a hydroelectric dam in the region of the Bayano, also called Ascanio Villalaz Hydroelectric Complex or Bayano Hydroelectric Complex. The construction of the hydroelectric facility was to entail the creation of an artificial lake in the 71 area of the Bayano , consisting of the construction of a concrete dam at the intersection of the Cañitas 2 72 and Bayano rivers, which created a reservoir that would cover approximately 350 km at the surface. 78. To carry out the project, on May 8, 1969, the State adopted Cabinet Decree 123. The IACHR observes that the considering paragraphs of this decree indicates, in part: “That due to the construction of the Bayano River Project part of the present-day Indigenous Reserve, in the Upper Bayano, will be flooded by the reservoir” and “that it is a duty of the State to provide the necessary area 73 for the relocation of the inhabitants of said reserve evicted due to the construction of the dam.” Specifically, Article 1 of Cabinet Decree 123 provided as follows: Article one: The area necessary for the hydroelectric reserve of the Bayano Hydroelectric Project is hereby established as the area included in the polygon that appears in Map No. PB-T-02-67 of nonadjudicable areas of Bayano and whose description is as follows sic: Starting from point No. 1, whose approximate coordinated referring to the Universal Transverse Mercator Grid (zone 17), 69 Annex 2. Informe Final de la Comisión Nacional de Límites Político-Administrativo sobre la Demarcación Física de la Comarca Kuna de Madungandí de 2000. p. 1. Annex 3 to the Petitioner’s brief of July 13, 2012, received by the IACHR the same day. 70 Annex 1. Esther Urieta Donos, thesis “Ipeti-Choco: Una comunidad Indígena de Panamá afectada por una Presa Hidroeléctrica”. Universidad Veracruzana, School of Anthropology, 1994. p. 46. Annex C to Petitioners’ brief of additional observations on the merits, received by the IACHR on December 18, 2009. 71 Annex 16. Alaka Wali, “The Transformation of a Frontier: State and Regional Relationships in Panama, 1972-1990.” Human Organization, Vol. 52, No. 2 (1994). Annex 16 to petitioners’ initial petition of May 11, 2000. Petitioners’ initial petition of May 11, 2000. p. 3; and Annex 3. Alaka Wali, “Kilowatts and Crisis: Hydroelectric Power and Social Dislocation in Eastern Panama,” 26 Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado 1989. p. 50. Annex 51 to petitioners’ initial petition of May 11, 2000. 72 73 Petitioners’ initial petition of May 11, 2000. p. 10; and State’s brief of March 24, 2011, received March 25, 2011. Annex 14. Cabinet Decree 123, May 8, 1969. Annex 8 to petitioners’ initial petition of May 11, 2000; and Annex 2 to the communication from the State of June 29, 2001.