of the Rivers Canita and Bayano, which would create a reservoir covering approximately 350 km2. 12. The petitioners indicate that the Bayano dam was built between 1972 and 1976 and that the indigenous peoples who inhabited the area were relocated in 1973 and 1977. They say that as a result of the dam, 80% of Kuna and Emberá ancestral lands were flooded; they were forced to move from their ancestral lands to lands smaller in area and of inferior quality; the ecosystem on which they depended for their physical and spiritual survival was destroyed; there was an increase in disease caused by decomposing vegetation, and the cultures of the Emberá and Kuna de Madungandí indigenous peoples deteriorated. 13. As regards the Emberá, the petitioners point out that the government relocated the members of this people to the vicinity of the Mebrillo River. They state that when it was determined that this place was unsuitable, were relocated to their current settlements of Ipeti and Piriati. They say that the Emberá were promised financial compensation for the loss of their crops, which, according to the petitioners, was to be delivered over a period of three years. 14. With respect to the Kuna of Madungandí people, the petitioners indicate that they were relocated to less fertile, higher-altitude lands. They also state that the government of President Omar Torrijos agreed to provide them with financial compensation as redress for the loss of their crops. They state that only those persons who possessed a property title were eligible for the compensation offered by the State, which was impossible for members of the Kuna people, who have a collective concept of land ownership. 15. According to the petitioners, in 1977, the government, alleging a shortage of funds, suspended all compensation payments and, as a result, at their current settlements, the members of the Kuna and Emberá peoples have continued to suffer the effects of the loss of their lands and crops following the dam’s construction.6 16. The petitioners also argue that the alleged victims have been prevented from effectively exercising their right to property due to the presence of peasant farmers who are illegally settling on their land, a situation made possible by the construction of the Pan-American Highway which provides access to the territory of the indigenous peoples. They state that in the mid-1970’s, these colonists initiated a continuing invasion of Kuna and Emberá territory and, taking advantage of the government’s passiveness in demarcating indigenous territories, took possession of indigenous lands along with their natural resources and turned them into grazing land. At present, colonists continue to unlawfully appropriate lands inhabited by indigenous peoples. 17. The petitioners point out that over the course of 30 years, innumerable measures have been adopted in an attempt to obtain compensation for the forced relocation of the alleged victims, secure recognition and protection for the lands they currently inhabit, and confront the invasion of the colonists. Among those measures, are a series of agreements that the petitioners have signed with the State since 1969, administrative complaints filed at least since 1992, and criminal complaints brought since January 2007 to deal with the invasion of squatters, none of which has been effective. 18. With respect to legal actions against the presence of the colonists, the petitioners maintained that in spite of the fact that the National Environmental Authority has carried out investigations and imposed penalties, these have been ineffective, as demonstrated by the fact that only three The petitioners note that according to a study carried out in 2002, the State, the Kuna and Emberá agreed in 1980 to defer the process of compensation for another five years. The study, which was carried out at the request of the petitioners and is part of the record before the IACHR, is titled “Technical Report on Compensation and Investment in the Kuna of Madungandí Region and the Emberá Piriati, Ipeti and Majé Cordillera Collective Lands,” and puts the amount of compensation outstanding to the alleged victims at $7,824,714.19. According to the petitioners, the State has not responded to the study or produced any documents to show that it has compensated the alleged victims. 6 3