73 and the Emberá of Bayano and their members denounced illegal logging to the National Environmental Authority on at least two occasions, in January and March 2007. The IACHR notes that on both occasions that authority made inspection visits in which it verified the illegal logging. In particular, the images that the IACHR has before it evidence the inequality between the forested area and the area invaded by 370 settlers. According to the information available to the IACHR, in the first case the ANAM ordered the persons found responsible to pay a fine of B/.500.00 (five hundred balboas). In the second case, there is no evidence whatsoever in the record that any sanction was applied, even though it was found that Article 80 of the Forestry Law was violated, as affirmed in the respective technical report. It should be noted that Article 81 of that law provides for a prison sentence of 30 days to six months for the violation of said Article 80. 279. In this respect, what has been indicated by the Inter-American Court should be recalled, namely: … proceedings followed through up until their conclusion and that fulfill their purpose are the clearest sign of zero tolerance for human rights violations, contribute to the reparation of the victims, and show society that justice has been done. The imposing of an appropriate punishment duly founded and proportionate to the seriousness of the facts, by the competent authority, permits verification that the sentence imposed is not arbitrary, thus ensuring that it does not become a type of de facto impunity. In this regard, the Court has emphasized that administrative or criminal sanctions play an important role in creating the type of institutional culture and competence 371 required to deal with the factors that explain certain structural contexts of violence. 280. In light of the foregoing, the IACHR observes that the prolonged and repeated nature of the acts of invasion and illegal logging, as well as the close association of the natural resources present in the traditional territories of the indigenous peoples in aspects fundamental for their material and cultural subsistence, indicate that the procedures followed turned out to be insufficient in the alleged victims’ search for protection and justice. The IACHR notes that, despite the several complaints filed by the alleged victims, the authorities failed to carry out a serious and effective investigation aimed at finding out the truth and the determination of responsibility that would allow the cessation of the serious invasion of the indigenous territory and the illegal extraction of natural resources372. 281. The IACHR considers that the lack of attention to their particular characteristics, together with the improper and ineffective prolongation of the procedures initiated left the alleged victims in a situation of lack of protection in light of the constant invasion of their territories and the destruction of their natural resources. It has not gone unnoticed by the IACHR that this situation places the indigenous peoples Kuna of the Madungandí and the Emberá of Bayano and their members in a permanent state of uncertainty, anxiety, and fear, thereby negatively affecting their right to possess and control their territory without any type of external interference. 282. In view of the foregoing considerations, the IACHR concludes that the administrative remedies initiated by the alleged victims for the protection of their ancestral territories and natural 370 Annex 94. Photographic images of the field inspection carried out September 14, 2007, by the Office of the 11 th Prosecutor of the First Judicial Circuit of Panama, folios 506-513; Photographic images of the field inspection conducted August 22, 2007, by the Office of the 11th Circuit Prosecutor of the First Judicial Circuit of Panama, folios 468-503. Petitioners’ brief of November 13, 2007, received by the IACHR the same day. In addition, in the procedure on precautionary measures, images were produced of logging in the zone. Annex 95. Annexes to the brief requesting precautionary measures of March 14, 2011, received by the IACHR March 15, 2011. 371 I/A Court H.R.. Case of Manuel Cepeda Vargas v. Colombia. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 26, 2010. para. 153. 372 The ineffectiveness of the actions submitted led to the petitioners to affirm in their request of precautionary measures before the IACHR that "They have filed legal actions internally to impede the illegal entry to their territories both administrative and legal established in the Panamanian jurisdiction; however, these invasions have continued and have increased (....) Desperate and due to the lack of authority in the area, the indigenous have resorted to criminal justice, knowing both the penalty, and the sanctions are laughable to intimidate settlers who have invaded more than a thousand hectares of indigenous forests and crops. " Brief requesting precautionary measures, March 14, 2011, received by the IACHR March 15, 2011.