26 this situation, the IACHR observes that the State took few if any actions aimed at removing the non115 indigenous persons from the territories of the Kuna of Madungandí and the Emberá of Bayano. 103. According to the information provided by the parties, in 1989 the Kuna of Madungandí drew up a Preliminary Bill for recognition of their territory under the legal concept of “comarca indígena,” (“special indigenous district”) which was submitted to the Ministry of Interior and Justice, and in 1990 to 116 the Legislative Assembly. 4. Aggravation of the invasion of non-indigenous persons, public protests, and creation of the Kuna Comarca of Madungandí (1990-1996) 104. The adjudication of plots to settlers in nearby lands, as well as the lack of any effective actions aimed at protecting the territory of the Kuna people of Madungandí and the Emberá from 1980 to 117 1990 led to an aggravation of the invasion by settlers on indigenous lands and intensified the conflictive 118 situation in the area. 105. The State’s response was to create an “Inter-Disciplinary Team” made up of the National Bureau of Local Governments, the Bureau of Indigenous Policy of the Ministry of Interior and Justice, and the Director of the Corporación del Bayano, among other state institutions. The team was in charge of drawing up an agreement, signed March 23, 1990, with two indigenous commissioners in addition to the authorities of the State, which states: “the possessory rights of the indigenous sector of the area of Bayano, as well as the ecological balance so necessary for the life of the Bayano Dam are today 119 suffering detriment due to the incursion of settlers in the area.” Accordingly, Article 1 of the agreement prohibits burning in the protection zones, and in Article 2 it is resolved that: “The settlers who are within the limits of the Comarca, and in the upper part of the protection basin of the river, as well as those who 120 arrived after December 20 of this year have to leave the area in dispute." 115 The minutes of the meeting held with the authorities of the Kuna indigenous people and the Corporación del Bayano on August 7, 1984, appears in the record before the IACHR. There, reference was made to the payment of compensation to settlers for leaving the indigenous lands. Annex 27. Annex 16 to petitioners’ initial petition of May 11, 2000; and Annex 9 to the State’s communication of June 29, 2001. In addition, an official telegram sent by the Office of the Governor of the Province of Panamá to the Mayor of the District of Chepo, of July 18, 1995, appears in the record before the IACHR; that telegram gave notice that “in the case of Ipetí-Emberá and Kuna, national government made decision to remove the settlers indigenous areas as of April 1992. Messrs. Enock Ponte and Guadalupe de Pineda should carry out this decision immediately.” Annex 28. Official telegram of July 18, 1995. Annex 25 to petitioners’ initial petition of May 11, 2000. Also before the IACHR is Resolution No. 4, adopted by the Corporación del Bayano on March 16, 1989, by which it prohibited “hunting, indiscriminate logging, slash-and-burn in the area owned by the Corporación para el Desarrollo Integral del Bayano,” with monetary sanctions imposed on violators. The IACHR notes that while the illegality of the activities carried out by the invaders in the zone is recognized, this measure was aimed at protecting the property of the Corporation, rather than that of the indigenous peoples. Annex 29. Resolution No. 4 issued by the Director of the Corporation dated March 16, 1989. Annex 17 to petitioners’ initial petition of May 11, 2000; and Annex 10 to the State’s communication of June 29, 2001. 116 Annex 11. Final assessment document of the Mesa de Concertación of the Bayano Zone, July 2, 1999. Annex 31 to petitioners’ initial petition of May 11, 2000. pp. 23 and 25. 117 According to information presented to the IACHR, in those years “the settlers  arrived in the zone indiscriminately and without control due to the lack of authority in the area and in this way settlements began form along the Pan American Highway.” Annex 21. Executive summary of the Mesa de Concertación of the Bayano Zone, July 2, 1999. Annex 31 to petitioners’ initial petition of May 11, 2000. p. 4. 118 The situation is described by information produced by the parties as follows: “This moment is considered critical in the recent history of the events in the Bayano basin: the indigenous groups once again denounced to the Government the incursion in their lands, the settlers alleged that those lands ‘are property of the State and specifically of the Corporación Bayano’ and the Government responded by creating a new Commission made up of the pertinent institutions and the representatives of the indigenous and peasant sectors, the commission was to take charge of studying the problem of the invasions reported.” Annex 11. Final assessment document of the Mesa de Concertación of the Bayano Zone, July 2, 1999. Annex 31 to petitioners’ initial petition of May 11, 2000. p. 24. 119 Annex 30. Agreement of March 23, 1990. Annex 18 to petitioners’ initial petition of May 11, 2000; and Annex 11 to the State’s communication of June 29, 2001. 120 Annex 30. Agreement of March 23, 1990. Annex 18 to petitioners’ initial petition of May 11, 2000; and Annex 11 to the State’s communication of June 29, 2001.