5. The Commission received the petition on May 11, 2000, and assigned it case number 12.354. On January 11, 2001, it transmitted a copy of the pertinent portions to the State and requested it to reply within 90 days, in keeping with Article 34 of its Regulations (in force in 2001). The Commission received the reply of the State on July 2, 2001. 6. The IACHR also received information from the petitioners on the following dates: May 26, 2001; July 26, 2001; September 24, 2001; December 12, 2001; January 18, 2002; May 15, 2002; September 25, 2002; February 21, 2003; August 4, 2003; December 23, 2003; January 19, 2007; March 14, 2007; April 17, 2007; May 10, 2007; September 15, 2007, and November 13, 2007. Said communications were duly relayed to the State. 7. Furthermore, the IACHR received comments from the State on the following dates: November 16, 2001; December 18, 2001; February 26, 2002; December 2, 2002; June 2, 2003; May 28, 2004; May 23, 2007; June 18, 2007, and September 6, 2007. Said communications were duly forwarded to the petitioners. 8. On November 12, 2001, a hearing was held at which the parties expressed their interest to reach a friendly settlement of the matter. On March 8, 2002, a working meeting was held in the framework of the 114th Period of Sessions of the IACHR to follow up on the friendly settlement process initiated by the parties. On September 25, 2002, the petitioners informed the IACHR that they had decided to terminate the friendly settlement process and requested that it continue its processing of the case. 9. In a communication of March 9, 2007, received on March 14, 2007, the petitioners requested the Commission to adopt precautionary measures in order to protect the lives and physical integrity of the members of the Kuna of Madungandí and Emberá of Bayano indigenous peoples, due to alleged illegal trespassing by colonists on their territory, which had intensified since January 2007. In this context, they requested the Commission to require the State to adopt effective measures to protect their right to the land.2 III. POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES A. The petitioners 10. According to information furnished by the parties, the Kuna of Madungandí and Emberá of Bayano indigenous peoples lived on the Alto Bayano Indigenous Reserve until 1976.3 At present, the members of the Kuna indigenous people from the Bayano region live in the Kuna of Madungandí Reserve4. The Emberá, for their part, live in the villages of Ipeti and Piriati.5 11. The petitioners state that in 1963, the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and the Government of Panama proposed a project for the construction of a hydroelectric complex in the Bayano Region that consisted of a concrete dam at the confluence The Commission requested the State for information on effective steps implemented to protect the land of the Kuna of Madungandí and Emberá of Bayano indigenous peoples; prevent colonists from entering those peoples’ land, in view of the alleged trespassing that has been taking place since January 2007; protect the lives and physical integrity of the members of those peoples; and report on the investigations conducted in response to the alleged confrontations reported by the indigenous Kuna of Madungandí and Emberá of Bayano. The Commission also asked the petitioners to provide detailed information about the harassment, threats, and confrontations mentioned in their request, and to explain the causes that have allowed the incidents that have occurred since January 2007 to increase. Both parties submitted the additional information requested by the Commission. 3 National Legislature, Law 18 of 1934. Article 1. The following uncultivated lands are declared indigenous reserves […] Alto Bayano Indigenous Region. 4 The petitioners point out that the Kuna of Madungandí Reserve was created in 1996 by Law 24 of January 12, 1996 and is situated east of Panama Province, Chepo District, in the area known as Alto Bayano. The Madungandí Region comprises 12 communities belonging to the Kuna People. 5 The petitioners state that the communities of Ipetí and Piriatí have attempted to obtain legal recognition for their lands by means of petitions to the legislature seeking the adoption of a collective lands law. As yet they have not succeeded. 2 2