78 ancestral lands is ignored, a relationship that is absent in the case of the non-indigenous population. Moreover, that framework is not compatible with the right of indigenous peoples and their members to belong to a differentiated ethnic group with its own social and cultural characteristics, traditions, and customs; and rather, it points to their assimilation with the objective of attaining the ends of the agrarian policy. 299. In connection with the obligation of the State to combat discriminatory practices, the IACHR notes in this case that the domestic law did not have adequate and efficient remedies for the protection of community and collective property right of indigenous peoples, what explains the numerous obstacles encountered by the Kuna people of Madungandí and the Emberá people of Bayano to the attainment of their rights, and the obstacles they have encountered gaining access to justice. 300. Additionally, the Commission has already ruled with respect to the systematic repudiation and breach of the commitments acquired with the indigenous peoples Kuna of the Madungandí and the Emberá of Bayano, after nearly 40 years from the dispossession and flooding of their ancestral territories, to make way for the construction of the Ascanio Villalaz Hydroelectric Complex, ignoring the alleged victims’ claims for decades. The IACHR has found that in addition to depriving the indigenous peoples who are the alleged victims of their right to recognition, delimitation, and demarcation of the territory, the State did not adopt measures of prevention and protection in response to the permanent invasion of settlers, and the continuous illegal extractive activities. 301. The Commission observes that this occurred despite the numerous communications sent and the numerous administrative and judicial remedies pursued, thus placing the alleged victims in a situation of lack of protection and permanent uncertainty. The IACHR considers that in the instant case the lack of equal protection was expressed, inter alia, in the failure to address the numerous notes sent by the highest-level indigenous authorities, the lack of an effective response by the administrative institutions in response to the requests submitted, the late or non-existent response of the judicial authorities to the constant and prolonged violation of the alleged victims’ territory and natural resources, and the failure to designate or late designation of authorities to protect the indigenous lands. This course of action on the part of the State stands in contrast to the measures adopted to favor the appropriation of lands by non-indigenous persons that directly and indirectly affected the territories of the Kuna people of Madungandí and the Emberá of Bayano, such as the construction of access roads into the zone inhabited by these indigenous peoples and the adjudication of lands under individual title in areas previously declared to be state-owned and on others claimed by the alleged victims. 302. The IACHR and the Inter-American Court have consistently held, preserving the particular connection between indigenous communities and their lands and resources is tied to the very 388 existence of these peoples, and therefore “warrants special measures of protection.” Accordingly, it is necessary for the right to property of indigenous and tribal peoples to protect this close bond they 389 maintain with their territories and the natural resources linked to their culture that are found there. 303. In this respect, the IACHR recalls that the rights to equality before the law, equal treatment, and non-discrimination require that states establish the legal mechanisms necessary to clarify and protect the right of indigenous peoples to communal property, and property rights in general under 388 IACHR, Report No. 75/02, Case 11,140, Mary and Carrie Dann v. United States, December 27, 2002, para. 128. I/A Court H.R., Case of the Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community v. Nicaragua. Judgment of August 31, 2001. Series C No. 79. Para. 149. See also: I/A Court H.R., Case of the Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay. Judgment of March 29, 2006. Series C No. 146, para. 222. 389 IACHR, Follow-up Report to the Report on Access to Justice and Social Inclusion: The Road towards Strengthening Democracy in Bolivia. Doc. OEA/Ser/L/V/II.135, Doc. 40, August 7, 2009, para. 156. 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. 148. 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. 137. I/A Court H.R., Case of the Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of March 29, 2006. Series C No. 146, paras. 118, 121.