2 their relocation, the granting of new lands, and the payment of compensation for the losses incurred. It states that for that reason, after the construction of the Bayano dam, the lands of these indigenous peoples were compensated for by other nearby lands that were declared not subject to adjudication and for their exclusive use by Decree No. 123 of May 8, 1969. It also alleged the Kuna District of Madungandí was created that by Law 24 of January 12, 1996, with which the collective property rights of the Kuna indigenous people of Bayano were legally recognized, and actions by non-indigenous persons or settlers were restricted. As regards the Emberá people of Bayano, the State argues that the approval of Law 72 of December 23, 2008, established a special procedure for recognizing the collective property rights of indigenous peoples, based on which the adjudication of their lands is in process. As regards the payment of compensation, it asserted that this matter was covered by Cabinet Decree 156 of 1971. It argued that pursuant thereto, payments were made to the alleged victims from 1974 to 1978 by the Corporación para el Desarrollo Integral del Bayano, a state agency in charge of compensation-related matters. 4. In Report No. 58/09, approved April 21, 2009, the Commission concluded that the petition was admissible in keeping with the provisions at Articles 46 and 47 of the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter "the American Convention" or "the Convention"), with respect to Article 21 of the American Convention in conjunction with its Article 1(1). In addition, applying the principle of iura novit curia, the Commission concluded that the petition was admissible for the alleged violation of Articles 2, 8, 3 24, and 25 of the American Convention on Human Rights. 5. In this report, after weighing the parties’ arguments and analyzing the evidence presented, the Commission concludes, pursuant to Article 50 of the American Convention, that the State of Panama is responsible for violating the rights contained in Articles 8, 21, 24, and 25 of the Convention in relation to its Articles 1(1) and 2, to the detriment of the indigenous peoples Kuna of the Madungandí and the Emberá of Bayano, and their members. II. PROCESSING BEFORE THE IACHR 6. On April 21, 2009, the Commission approved Report No. 58/09, in which it found admissible the petition regarding the Kuna indigenous people of Madungandí and the Emberá indigenous people of Bayano and their members. The decision was communicated to the parties by note of April 27, 2009, with which the term of two months began to run for the petitioners to submit observations on the merits. At the same time, the IACHR placed itself at the disposal of the petitioners to pursue a friendly settlement, in keeping with Article 48(1)(f) of the Convention. 7. By brief received May 1, 2009, the petitioners stated their interest in renouncing the friendly settlement process and pursuing the procedure before the IACHR. After being granted a onemonth extension, requested June 25, 2009, on December 18, 2009, the petitioners presented their additional observations on the merits, whose pertinent parts were forwarded to the State on January 19, 2010. On that occasion, the IACHR gave the State three months to present its additional observations on the merits, in keeping with Article 37(1) of its Rules of Procedure. By brief received May 3, 2010, the State submitted its observations on the merits, which were forwarded to the petitioners by note of May 13, 2010. 8. During this stage, the IACHR received additional information from the petitioners on the following dates: November 16, 2010, January 14, 2011, May 31, 2011, March 13, 2012, May 16, 2012, June 20, 2012, July 13, 2012 and October 17, 2012. The State sent additional information to the IACHR on the following dates: March 25, 2011, September 27, 2011, October 4, 2011, May 14, 2012 and September 24, 2012. The notes sent by the parties were duly forwarded to the other party. 3 In Report No. 58/09, the Commission found the petition inadmissible in relation to the alleged violations of the rights recognized in Articles 4, 7, 10, 12, 17, and 19 of the American Convention as well as in Articles I, III, V, VI, VII, XI, and XIII of the American Declaration. IACHR, Admissibility Report No. 58/09, April 21, 2009, Petition 12,354, Kuna of Madungandí and Emberá of Bayano Indigenous Peoples and Their Members.