5 e. there have been death threats “against the community leaders and those individuals who ha[d] stood out due to their firm attitude against the dam and negotiating with the company,” which have not been adequately investigated; f. on January 3, 2008, a demonstration by the Ngöbe was repressed using tear gas and other types of force, and in this context “fifty protesters [were] detained, including three minors;” g. on July 3, 4, and 5, 2009, the Community of Charco La Pava “was sieged by security agents, who threatened to evacuate the community by force” and the affected communities were in “grave risk of suffering a violent repression at any time;” h. “the Chan-75 dam would flood the four communities,” all of which “would have to be transferred from their current settlements.” The Commission added that the State “has quickly advanced in the construction and flooding;” i. Since February 2008 the communities of Charco La Pava and Valle del Rey have experienced inconveniences due to the noise of the construction works and the detonation of explosives, which sometimes was 24 hours a day. They claim grave psychological impact due to this type of explosions, as they generate a situation of a lot of pressure for the communities. The Commission added that Ngöbe families “ha[d] reported that due to the dust generated by the construction machinery around them, several children had started suffering from frequent and intense respiratory illnesses,” “vomiting and diarrhea,” and as consequence of the explosions “the river [was] being contaminated” and that “the presence of fuel and motor oil waste” would “contaminate the fish which are the base of their nutrition” and “any way of getting food (hunting, fishing, or agriculture);” j. the communities, especially Charco La Pava, would need to be relocated urgently in view of the unsustainable life conditions suffered, given that they “live surround[ed] by the construction works;” k. “the transit of persons of vehicles, whether from the community or not, has been restricted both by AES personnel” and “by the Police, which at times supported the company’s employees in imposing these limitations.” According to the Commission, the restrictions to transit consisted of “open prohibitions on passing from and to the communities, requiring permits –issued by the same company from their offices in Changuinola or in Panama City- to be able to enter the communities, of performing searches, roadblocks, and intrusive questioning of those who try to pass through the existing access roads, and acts of harassment, both by the police and by company employees.” The circulation restrictions would impede “carrying out the traditional patterns of mobility along the ancestral territory for effects of hunting, collecting, and agriculture;” l. those who had signed agreements had been subject to “deceitful maneuvers,” “pressure and grave threats” to compel them to accept compensations and resettlements.” The Commission referred to the report of the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the situation of the Ngöbe communities, issued on September 7, 2009, where the Rapporteur, “during his on site visit,” “identified a significant level of discontent among the members of the communities affected by the project,” including certain people who “had signed agreements with the company” because “they had no other option.” The Special Rapporteur emphasized that “there is a clear imbalance between the parties to the negotiation in terms of power, access to information, and capacity,” that “the negotiations promoted by the Company are oriented toward achieving agreements with individual families, not adjusting to the traditional