64 238. Similarly, the State was informed of those facts through administrative and criminal remedies pursued before the competent authorities. Specifically, as has been found in the facts proven, the alleged victims filed, at the administrative level, requests for the eviction of occupants with the mayor of the district of Chepo, the governor of the province of Panamá, and the Presidency of the Republic. In addition, once a corregidor was established and appointed for the Kuna Comarca of Madungandí, they filed that request with this authority. Furthermore, as has been considered proven, the alleged victims denounced on more than one occasion the illegal extraction of timber and the ecological harm caused to the National Environmental Authority. In the criminal justice realm, many complaints were filed with the competent authorities referring to both the illegal occupation of the indigenous territory and the environmental harm caused by the illegal logging. 239. The IACHR observes that despite the numerous administrative and judicial initiatives and actions attempted by the alleged victims to obtain the relocation of the settlers, impede the continuation of the invasions, and halt the illegal logging, the State did not adopt measures aimed at protecting the territories and natural resources of the alleged victims. It also notes that the State has recognized the existence of this problem in the processing of this case, and has affirmed that it will take action to prevent and control its occurrence. Nonetheless, as reported repeatedly to the IACHR, the constant presence of settlers and illegal logging continue devastating the environmental integrity of the territories occupied by the Kuna of Madungandí and the Emberá of Bayano, generating a permanent state of uncertainty and anxiety among their members. 240. In the opinion of the IACHR, the illegal occupation of settlers and the illegal logging on indigenous lands was due to the failure of the State to adopt timely and effective measures to prevent the occurrence of these acts. It also considers that the lack of effective protection of the territories and natural resources vis-à-vis outside interventions, through the application of its own constitutional and statutory provisions, impeded the Kuna indigenous people of Madungandí and the Emberá of Bayano and their members from freely enjoying their property, in keeping with their community tradition, and also hindered the use and enjoyment of the natural resources in their territory. 241. The IACHR also notes that the instant case is illustrative of the ties that the timely recognition, demarcation, and delimitation have for the purpose of preventing and protecting the indigenous territory and its natural resources. In effect, the breach by the State of its obligations to recognize, delimit, and demarcate the territories claimed by the alleged victims in timely fashion made possible the invasion of settlers on indigenous lands, and brought with it the change in the normal development of the spiritual and cultural life of the alleged victims, as well as the development of their traditional economic survival activities. 242. The IACHR considers it should recall that the fact that these indigenous peoples do not have title to their territory formally recognized by the authorities does not relieve that State of international responsibility, thus as the case-law of the system has established, the guarantees of protection of the right to property under the inter-American human rights instruments can be fully enforced by the indigenous and tribal peoples with respect to the territories that belong to them but that have not yet been 338 formally titled, demarcated, or delimited by State. Indeed, for the IACHR the states have a special obligation to protect untitled indigenous territories from any act that may affect or diminish the existence, value, use or enjoyment of goods, including existing natural resources, since those peoples have communal property rights over lands and natural resources based on traditional patterns of ancestral use 339 and occupation. 338 IACHR, Application submitted to the I/A Court H.R. in the case of the Kichwa People of Sarayaku and their members v. Ecuador, April 26, 2010, para. 125. IACHR, Report No. 40/04, Case 12,053, Maya Indigenous Communities of the Toledo District v. Belize, October 12, 2004, paras. 142 and 153. 339 IACHR, Indigenous and Tribal Peoples’ Rights over their Ancestral Lands and Natural Resources: Norms and Jurisprudence of the Inter‐ American Human Rights System. OEA/Ser.L/V/II.Doc.56/09, December 30, 2009, para. 68.