5 to the Emberá people, they indicated that to date they have not received legal recognition of their lands. They argued that only recently, with the adoption of Law 72 of December 23, 2008, has a procedure been established for adjudicating collective property rights over indigenous lands that are not included within the comarcas. Under that law, they indicated that in 2009 they presented a request to obtain title from the National Bureau of Agrarian Reform (Dirección Nacional de Reforma Agraria), an institution that was later replaced by the National Lands Authority (Autoridad Nacional de Tierras). Nonetheless, they argued that the request was not approved as said law was not regulated. They said that while the respective Regulation was approved by Executive Decree 223 of July 29, 2010, the request presented by the petitioner indigenous communities has not led, to date, to the legal recognition, delimitation, or demarcation of their lands. 23. In addition, the petitioners argued that the alleged victims have been impeded from effectively exercising their collective property rights due to the constant appropriation of their territory by settlers and illegal logging. In this respect, they stated that in the wake of the construction of the Pan American Highway, as of the mid-1970s non-indigenous persons began an ongoing invasion of the territories of the Kuna and Emberá peoples of Bayano. They added that taking advantage of the State’s passivity in carrying out the demarcation, the settlers took part of the indigenous lands, along with their natural resources, and converted them to pasture. They stated that these persons are engaged in logging in their territories, which has negative repercussions for the conservation of the fragile ecosystem in the area. They argued that the present invasion by the settlers and the deforestation they have caused are threatening the life and security of the indigenous communities, who depend on the land for their survival, and have made it difficult to preserve their culture and ancestral traditions. 24. They noted that they have pursued administrative remedies since 1992, and that since 2007 they have lodged criminal complaints to confront the invasion by settlers, all of which proved ineffective, for the settlers have returned to the territory of the indigenous peoples and have continued their illegal activities. According to the petitioners, the complaints presented by the Public Ministry are still in the investigative phase, without any individual being investigated or apprehended to date. 25. Based on these facts, the petitioners alleged the violation of Article 21 of the American Convention. In particular, they argued that the loss of the ancestral territories of the alleged victims due to the flooding provoked by the construction of the dam and the consequent displacement to new lands is per se a violation of Article 21 of the Convention. They also alleged that the lack of effective and timely payment of the compensation to the Kuna and Emberá peoples constitutes the violation of Article 21(2) of the Convention, insofar as their right to just compensation has not been guaranteed. 26. In addition, they argued that the State has breached its obligation to recognize, delimit, demarcate, and protect the territories currently inhabited by the Kuna and Emberá peoples. As regards the Kuna people of Madungandí in particular, they argued that the existence of Law 24, which creates the comarcas, is not sufficient to discharge the obligations of the State under the Convention, given that in practice there has been a lack of protection due to the constant invasion by the settlers, which constitutes a violation of Article 21 of the Convention. 27. With respect to the Emberá indigenous people, they argued that the lack of formal recognition of and effective protection for their collective lands violates the obligation contained in Article 21 of the Convention. They argue that while Law 72 provides the necessary legal framework, to date the request made for the titling of their lands has not been resolved, thus they do not yet have legal recognition of their collective property rights. They argued that Law 72 does not provide for a system for resolving land conflicts, which in their opinion means that “even if the request under Law 72 is approved, the Emberá will continue being vulnerable to violations of their property rights.” They added that “the State has to ensure that the Emberá have an exclusive property right to their lands and should initiate the process of clarifying settlers’ rights.” 28. As regards Articles 8(1) and 25 of the Convention, the petitioners stated that the Panamanian legal order does not provide an effective mechanism, first, for obtaining the right to the recognition of collective property rights for indigenous peoples, and second, for protecting the territories of