2 The State ratified the American Convention on Human Rights on June 22, 1978 and accepted the Court’s jurisdiction on May 9, 1990. The Commission has appointed Commissioner José de Jesús Orozco Henríquez and Executive Secretary Emilio Álvarez Icaza L. as the delegates in this case. In addition, Deputy Executive Secretary Elizabeth Abi-Mershed as well as Silvia Serrano Guzmán and Isabel Madariaga, attorneys with the IACHR Executive Secretariat, are to serve as legal advisors. Pursuant to Article 35 of the Rules of Procedure of the Inter-American Court, the Commission encloses herewith a copy of report 125/12 prepared under Article 50 of the Convention, together with a copy of the entire record of the proceedings before the Inter-American Commission (Appendix I) and the annexes used in the preparation of report 125/12 (Annexes). The State of Panama was notified of the above merits report by means of a communication dated November 26, 2012, wherein it was given two months to report on steps taken to implement the recommendations. The information furnished by the State following notification of the merits report was limited to the applicable regulatory framework and to events that had occurred prior to issuance of said report, with no concrete response regarding implementation of the seven recommendations made by the Commission having been provided. Accordingly, the Commission submits the instant case to the jurisdiction of the InterAmerican Court in view of the need to obtain justice for the victims in the absence of specific information on implementation of the recommendations. The Inter-American Commission submits to the jurisdiction of the Court all of the facts and human rights violations described in report on the merits no. 125/12. Even though the factual framework established by the Inter-American Commission refers to events that occurred prior to the date of acceptance of jurisdiction, such references are made in order to provide context for the reporting of subsequent facts and violations. It warrants mention that even though some of the obligations regarding the right to property that have not been met were themselves rooted in an earlier event–the hydroelectric plant and flooding of ancestral lands–the lack of compensation persists. In addition, in the case of the Kuna de Madungandí people, there was a failure to demarcate, award title for, or protect [their land] over the course of the more than 10 years the Court was competent ratione temporis and such situation continues through the present day in the case of the Emberá de Bayano people. Hence, Court is competent ratione temporis with respect to violations of the right to property of these two indigenous peoples. All of the remaining facts of the case tied to the lack of protection vis-à-vis the incursion of third parties and the absence of legal protection in such cases fall under the Court’s purview. In this regard, the Commission requests that the Court conclude and declare that: 1. The State of Panama violated Article 21 of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of the same instrument, to the detriment of the indigenous peoples Kuna of the Madungandí and the Emberá of Bayano and their members on having failed to grant just and prompt compensation, more than 40 years after their ancestral territories were alienated.