4 15. The IACHR received information from both parties on implementation of the precautionary measures granted. The petitioners filed information on the following dates: April 20, 2011, June 14, 2010, and October 21, 2011. The State, for its part, presented information to the IACHR on the following dates: April 27, 2011, June 15, 2011, September 14, 2011, February 1, 2012, and February 6, 2012. As of the date of adoption of this report, the IACHR continues to monitor the situation. III. THE PARTIES’ POSITIONS A. The petitioners 16. The petitioners alleged that the indigenous peoples Kuna of the Madungandí and the Emberá of Bayano inhabited the Upper Bayano Indigenous Reserve (Reserva Indígena del Alto Bayano) until 1976, when they were moved to new localities due to the construction of the Bayano Hydroelectric Complex (Complejo Hidroeléctrico de Bayano). They stated that at present, the members of the Kuna indigenous people of the Bayano region live in the Kuna Comarca of Madungandí, located in the eastern part of the province of Panamá. They indicated that the Emberá inhabit the communities of Ipetí and Piriatí, which have attempted to obtain legal recognition of their lands through numerous political and administrative initiatives; they have yet to attain any results. 17. The petitioners pointed out in that 1963 the Panamanian State and the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) proposed a project entailing the construction of a hydroelectric complex in the Bayano Region by building a “concrete” dam at the intersection of the Cañita 2 and Bayano rivers, creating a reservoir that would cover approximately 350 km . 18. They alleged that in early 1969 the government of Panama negotiated several agreements with the alleged victims with the aim of transferring them to new lands. They indicated that their relocation was forced given that “they never had an option to prevent the construction of the hydroelectric dam and the flooding of their lands.” They argued that considering that there was no other alternative, they had to accept the State’s terms, which consisted of granting them new lands and paying them both individual and collective economic compensation. They indicated that the hydroelectric dam was under construction from 1972 to 1976, and that the indigenous peoples who lived in the area were moved from 1973 to 1977. 19. According to the petitioners, the construction of the dam resulted in the flooding of 80% of the territory of the Kuna indigenous peoples, i.e. eight of the 10 villages that existed at that time, entailing the displacement of more than 2,000 persons. They argued, as regards the Emberá people of Bayano, that the village of Majecito was flooded, displacing its 500 inhabitants. They also noted that the project entailed the destruction of the ecosystem on which they depended for their physical and spiritual sustenance; the spread of diseases caused by plant decay, and the cultural deterioration of these indigenous peoples. 20. They alleged that the members of the Kuna people of Madungandí were relocated to less fertile and higher-altitude lands, and that the payment of collective monetary compensation for the loss of their lands ceased unilaterally in 1977, while the individual compensations for the crops and animals lost were not paid in their entirety. The petitioners argued that the State relocated the Emberá indigenous people of Bayano near the Membrillo river. Nonetheless, when it was shown that this place was inadequate, they were moved once again, this time to their current settlements of Ipetí and Piriatí. They reported that they were also promised monetary compensation for the loss of their crops, which was to be paid over three years, a commitment they state has not carried out. 21. They argued that in the years after their relocation the alleged victims took many initiatives to obtain legal recognition and protection for their territories and to pay adequate compensation. Nonetheless, they allege that the State has yet to fully carry out these commitments. 22. As for the recognition of their right to collective property, specifically, they indicated that the Kuna Comarca of Madungandí was established by Law 24, adopted January 12, 1996. With respect