B. Other admissibility requirements 1. Exhaustion of domestic remedies 29. Article 46(1)(a) of the Convention provides that admission of petitions shall be subject to the requirement that the remedies under domestic law have been pursued and exhausted in accordance with generally recognized principles of international law. Article 46(2)(a) provides that said requirement shall not apply when: a) the domestic legislation of the state concerned does not afford due process of law for the protection of the right or rights that have allegedly been violated; b) the party alleging violation of his rights has been denied access to the remedies under domestic law or has been prevented from exhausting them; and, c) there has been unwarranted delay in rendering a final judgment under the aforementioned remedies. The jurisprudence of the Inter-American system clearly states that such remedies need only be exhausted if they are adequate and effective for repairing the alleged violation. 30. The Commission will analyze the exhaustion of domestic remedies requirement taking into account that the petitioners allege that due to the construction of the Bayano Hydroelectric Dam, the collective rights of the Kuna of Madungandí and Emberá of Bayano peoples were violated because 1) the alleged victims were not paid the full amount of compensation agreed to by the State; 2) the lands currently inhabited by the Kuna of Madungandí have not been demarcated or protected; 3) the territory occupied by the Emberá of Bayano has not been recognized; 4) the intrusion by colonists into the lands presently inhabited by the alleged victims has generated a situation of constant conflict; and 5) indigenous culture has not been respected. 31. The petitioners argue that they have been prevented from exhausting remedies in the domestic jurisdiction because there is no domestic mechanism that forces the State to comply with the agreements it has made with indigenous peoples. In that respect, they provided documentation in order to demonstrate that the Kuna of Madungandí and the Emberá of Bayano, as indigenous peoples, have signed a considerable number of agreements with the State of Panama since 1976 in order to obtain full compensation for the construction of the Bayano Dam; the demarcation of the territory of the Kuna of Madungandí; the recognition of the Emberá of Bayano territory; and for the eviction of the colonists. However, they assert that the State has not carried out these agreements and they state there is no existing legal mechanism to enforce its compliance, consequently, they allege that it is not possible to exhaust domestic remedies. 32. With regards to the situation of the colonists, the petitioners state that in addition to the agreements signed with the State, they have instituted administrative and judicial proceedings before the Office of the Governor of the Province of Panama, the Office of the President of the Republic and the Office of the Attorney. However, these actions have not been effective and the problem continues. 33. The petitioners conclude that within the domestic laws of Panama, there is no legal process to safeguard the collective rights to property of the alleged victims. As an example, they state that the only collective actions permitted are those provided in the Consumer Protection and Antimonopoly Law (Law 29 of 1996) to protect consumers from defective products or services. The petitioners also hold that they are denied access to the remedies under domestic law by reason of indigence, the geographical isolation of the alleged victims, and because State institutions impart Justice in Spanish and do not recognize the indigenous language. They say that the only judicial organ with jurisdiction over the Madungandí Reserve is the Office of the Circuit Public Prosecutor in Panama City, which is 300 km away from the Reserve, a distance that represents an obstacle for seeking investigation of offenses committed by colonists. They added that the State only provides very limited assistance to enable indigenous peoples to protect their rights in the national courts, and often none at all. 34. The State, for its part, holds that the exceptions invoked by the petitioners are not applicable because it is not true that the local tribunals are inaccessible to the petitioners. The State ads in 6