6 indigenous peoples in the face of the illegal occupation by settlers. As for the first, they indicated that the procedure established by Law 72 has proved ineffective, insofar as it has not been resolved in a reasonable time, considering the request was filed in 2009 and to date there has been no conclusion. 29. As for protecting the territories of indigenous peoples in the face of illegal occupation, they argued that the Kuna Comarca of Madungandí did not have a corregidor, an authority with the rank of administrative police with jurisdiction to order the eviction of invaders, and that it was not until June 2008 that legislative measures were adopted to allow for the appointment of this authority, by Executive Decree 247. They argued that nonetheless this authority has not actually been appointed, therefore they do not have access to an adequate an effective remedy for the protection of their lands by which to impede the incursions of settlers, and to relocate those who are illegally occupying indigenous lands. They indicated that all the administrative and judicial remedies pursued before the appointment of the corregidor to expel the settlers from their lands have suffered an unjustified delay, and indeed some of them have not even been resolved. 30. As for the violation of Article 24 of the Convention, the petitioners alleged that the difficulties experienced by the Kuna of Madungandí and Emberá indigenous peoples in securing access to justice and protection of their collective lands are due to their ethnic origin, given that the State offers different and more favorable treatment to the property claims of non-indigenous individuals. 31. In relation to the violation of Article 2 of the Convention, they alleged that the State has breached its obligation to have effective provisions of domestic law that are effective for the protection of their right to official recognition of their property rights. They added that “it does not suffice to have only one process for the recognition of rights,” but rather the State must ensure the effective protection of the indigenous territories, overseeing the application of the provisions that protect them, and punishing violations, all of which are obligations that were breached by the State of Panama. B. The State 32. The State argued that the construction of the Bayano hydroelectric complex was one of several public projects promoted to provide electricity to the Panamanian State so as to avoid dependence on imported and costly energy resources. The State noted that on addressing this demand for energy the project was implemented without repudiating the specific rights of the communities that were living in that region. It alleged that this project was carried out 42 years ago, and that it met the requirements of the time. 33. In particular, it argued that the construction of the hydroelectric complex was preceded by technical studies to limit its negative impact, and it indicated that agreements were entered into with the Kuna and Emberá indigenous peoples on their relocation and the conditions in which it would take place. It asserted that accordingly Cabinet Decree 123 of May 8, 1969, was approved, by which the lands of the indigenous were compensated for by neighboring lands that were declared not subject to adjudication and for their exclusive use. 34. According to the State, the resettlement of the Kuna was carried out from 1973 to 1975, and answered to the signing of the “Agreement of Farallón,” signed on October 29, 1976, by the Government of the Republic of Panama and the Caciques of the Kuna people of Bayano. It argued that this agreement guaranteed that the communities affected by the construction of the hydroelectric complex would be resettled in the region of the present-day Kuna Comarca of Madungandí. It stated that the relocation of the Emberá people was preceded by the signing of the “Agreement of Majecito” of February 5, 1975, under which they were moved to the localities of Ipetí and Piriatí. 35. As regards the legal recognition of the territory of the Kuna of Madungandí, the State indicated that the Kuna Comarca of Madungandí, established by Law 24 of January 12, 1996, elaborated upon by Decree No. 228 of December 3, 1998, was created “as a show of the public policy of territorial security for the indigenous peoples.” It stated that with this, the boundaries of the Kuna territory were recognized, and actions by settlers were restricted.