66 344 implement those procedures in practice ; and it has explained that it is not sufficient, to meet the requirements established in Article 25, for there to be legal provisions that recognize and protect indigenous property rights – there must be specific procedures, clearly regulated, for matters such as the titling of lands occupied by the indigenous groups or their demarcation, in view of their particular 345 characteristics , and that such procedures must be effective in practice to allow for the enjoyment of the right to territorial property – that is, that in addition to the formal existence of the procedures, they must 346 yield results or responses to the violations of legally recognized rights. 247. In the instant case, the IACHR considers that the analysis of those obligations should be done analyzing, first, the formal existence of a procedure for the titling, demarcation, and delimitation of the collective property rights of the Kuna indigenous people of Madungandí and the Emberá indigenous people of Bayano that has the characteristics indicated above. Second, one should consider whether the remedies pursued by the Emberá people of Bayano under Law 72, adopted December 23, 2008, were resolved in keeping with Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention. 248. As for the first aspect, the IACHR observes that, as indicated, Article 127 of the 1972 Constitution of Panama recognizes the collective property rights of the indigenous communities and 347 establishes that the specific procedures for their recognition shall be determined by law. The IACHR 348 finds that the domestic legal order has included a similar provision since the 1946 Constitution. 249. Nonetheless, up until the adoption of Law 72, the procedure available in the Panamanian legal order that would allow for the practical application of such constitutional recognition was to be designated a “comarca” through a statute adopted by the Legislative Assembly. In the opinion of the IACHR, that entailed a lengthy process for pressing the claim that was mainly political in nature – and inherently discretional – that the indigenous peoples and their members had to pursue to win recognition of their territorial rights. As the IACHR has noted in the previous section, five comarcas were created from 1938 to 2000, leaving out numerous indigenous communities which, though sharing the ethnic origin of the peoples favored by statutes creating comarcas, were not included in them. 250. In the case of the Kuna of Madungandí and the Emberá of Bayano, as the IACHR considers has been shown, the process of claiming territorial rights began no later than 1976 and 1975, respectively, with the signing of the first agreements with the State. Given the breach of these initial agreements, the alleged victims, through their representative institutions, have for more than three decades taken innumerable steps vis-à-vis state authorities at the national, provincial, and local levels aimed at obtaining legal recognition for their territories; the Commission considers this period excessive. 251. The IACHR notes that the lack of a clearly regulated suitable and effective procedure for access to indigenous property rights on occasion led the indigenous peoples to adopt measure that would allow them to gain sufficient notoriety and muster enough political pressure to have their claims addressed. The IACHR observes that based on the facts proven, on repeated occasions those actions resulted in the State adopting new commitments or taking measures that did not provide a comprehensive and sustainable response to the underlying claims with the objective of putting an end to 344 I/A Court H.R.. Case of the Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community v. Nicaragua. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 31, 2001. Series C No. 79, para. 115. 345 I/A Court H.R.. Case of the Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community v. Nicaragua. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 31, 2001. Series C No. 79, paras. 122, 123. 346 I/A Court H.R.. Case of the Xákmok Kásek Indigenous Community v. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 24, 2010, Series C No. 214, para. 140. 347 That provision provides as follows: “The State shall guarantee the indigenous communities reservation of the lands necessary and collective property rights in them for attaining their economic and social wellbeing. The Law shall regulate the procedures to be followed to attain this aim and the corresponding delimitations within which the private appropriation of land is prohibited.” 348 Article 94 of the 1946 Constitution; Article 116 of the 1972 Constitution; Article 123 of the 1972 Constitution, amended in 1978, 1983, and 1994; and Article 127 of the 1972 Constitution amended in 2004.