23 93. In the early 1970s the State decided to build a section of the Pan American Highway, the system of roads that was seeking to connect all the Americas. Specifically, it was proposed that the section between the bridge over the Cañitas river, in the district of Chepo, province of Panamá, to the border with Colombia be built. For this reason, Law 71 of September 20, 1973, was issued; it was amended by Law 53 of September 1, 1978. These provisions established the following: Article 1. The construction of the section of the Pan American Highway from the bridge over the Cañitas river in the District of Chepo, Province of Panamá and the border with the Republic of Colombia, is hereby declared to be of urgent social interest, as well as the use of the stable lands within a strip of eight (8 km) kilometers wide on each side of the central line of that highway…. Article 4. The Executive Organ, consistent with the needs of public or social utility or based on the socioeconomic development projects, may regulate the adjudication of the lands within the zone described in Article 1 which are at present State property. Until such time as the Executive Organ issues the regulation referred to in this article, the adjudication shall be governed by the 103 provisions. 94. The IACHR observes that while the indigenous peoples were transferred to new lands, in subsequent years the State did not legally acknowledge their collective property rights nor did it physically delimit their territory. These factors plus the migration of peasants attracted by the construction of the Pan American Highway gave rise to the invasion of non-indigenous persons in the territories on which the 104 alleged victims had been relocated. In addition, according to the information presented by the parties, despite the promulgation of Cabinet Decree 156 the State did not effectively pay the total economic 105 compensation agreed upon, but unilaterally halted those payments. 3. Inter-institutional Commission, Decree 5-A, and Agreements of Mutual Accord (1980-1990) 95. Due to the breach of the initial commitments, the indigenous peoples had to enter into new agreements with the State. The IACHR observes that this renegotiation process was marked by the constant failure of the State to carry out the commitments entered into, followed by public demonstrations and acts of discontent, such as roadblocks on highways and embargos of timber, which led to the State entering into new agreements, which it would once again fail to respect. 96. As regards the payment of compensation, in 1980 the Kuna people reached an agreement on the suspended compensation payments, signed by the Vice President of the Republic, Ricardo De La Espriella. According to the terms agreed upon, the payment of the compensation shall continue for five more years, thus the payments were to be made for a total of eight years. Nonetheless, 106 this new commitment was not carried out in full either. 103 Law 71 of September 20, 1973, amended by Law 53 of September 1, 1978. Source: National Assembly of Panama. Legispan: Database of Legislation of the Republic of Panama. Available at: http://www.asamblea.gob.pa/APPS/LEGISPAN/PDF_NORMAS/1970/1973/1973_027_2252.PDF. Annex 13. Report and Recommendation of the Intergovernmental Commission. Annex 21 to the State’s communication of June 29, 2001. p. 1; and petitioners’ initial petition of May 11, 2000. p. 15. 104 Annex 11. Final assessment document of the Mesa de Concertación of the Bayano Zone of July 2, 1999. Annex 31 to petitioners’ initial petition of May 11, 2000. p. 22. 105 Petitioners’ initial petition of May 11, 2000. p. 15; Annex 22. Diagnóstico de la situación legal de las tierras de las comunidades indígenas de Alto Boyano, 2nd part, 1999, p. 22. Annex 23 to the summary of the petitioners’ intervention during the admissibility hearing of November 12, 2001. In addition, subsequent statements by the State verify the failure to make the payments. At the second meeting to reach a friendly settlement agreement, it is stated: “One must verify the payments made to the indigenous and peasants because of the construction of the Bayano Hydroelectric Project, and based on that information move towards viable solutions. A similar evaluation is needed for the Emberá of Ipetí and Piriatí.” State’s brief of February 18, 2002, received by the IACHR February 26, 2002. 106 Petitioners’ initial petition of May 11, 2000. p. 19; and State’s brief of March 24, 2011, received March 25, 2011. p. 2. Other documentary evidence presented by the parties also makes reference to the prolongation for eight years of the compensation agreed upon: “Before the lake was flooded, the Government gave permits to exploit the timber in the area; with what is obtained from these resources compensation will be paid for eight years to the producers affected (indigenous and settlers)”. Annex 11. Final assessment document of the Mesa de Concertación of the Bayano Zone of July 2, 1999. Annex 31 to petitioners’ initial petition of Continúa…