57 recent decades in the Americas, and to the development of the human rights of indigenous peoples internationally. 213. In addition, Panama is one of the states for which ILO Convention 107 still holds, as it has not ratified ILO Convention 169. Article 11 of Convention 107 provides: Article 11. The right of ownership, collective or individual, of the members of the populations concerned over the lands which these populations traditionally occupy shall be recognised. 214. In addition to the constitutional recognition of the fundamental rights of indigenous peoples in Panama, there are several provisions in the domestic legal order on those rights, especially the five laws establishing comarcas, which recognize the collective property rights of certain indigenous peoples over their ancestral territories. 215. The Commission considers that in this case the right to property enshrined in Article 21 of the Convention includes the right to community property, in keeping with what is stipulated in the Constitution and legislation of Panama. This consideration is consistent with what the Inter-American Court held on this point: Applying the aforementioned criteria, the Court has considered that the close ties the members of indigenous communities have with their traditional lands and the natural resources associated with their culture thereof, as well as the incorporeal elements deriving therefrom, must be secured under Article 21 of the American Convention. The culture of the members of indigenous communities reflects a particular way of life, of being, seeing and acting in the world, the starting point of which is their close relation with their traditional lands and natural resources, not only because they are their main means of survival, but also because they form part of their worldview, of their religiousness, 304 and consequently, of their cultural identity. 216. In view of the foregoing, it is established that the Panamanian legal order expressly recognizes and obligates the State to guarantee the property rights of the indigenous peoples, including the Kuna of Madungandí and the Emberá of Bayano. Pursuant to Articles 21 and 29 of the American Convention, that regulation is protected by the Convention. 217. In the instant case, the State of Panama signed, over nearly three decades, a series of agreements with the Kuna of Madungandí and the Emberá of Bayano, and also promulgated decrees and resolutions formalizing the commitment to recognize, in their benefit, a title to the collective ownership of the lands granted in compensation for the alienation of their ancestral territories. 218. Specifically with respect to the Emberá indigenous people of Bayano, recognition by the State of the collective property rights to their lands, and the commitment to formally recognize this right was set forth, in at least the following: (i) the 1975 Agreement of Majecito, which ordered the resettlement of the Emberá communities that inhabited the Bayano region before the construction of the dam to the localities of Piriatí and Ipetí; (ii) Article 2(e) of Decree 5-A of 1982, which ruled out the adjudication of 305 plots established that their “demarcation is a responsibility of the National Bureau of Indigenous Policy” ; (iii) the agreement of September 6, 1983, among the Kuna of Madungandí, the Emberá of Piriatí, and a representative of the Ministry of Interior and Justice by which it was agreed to establish boundaries 304 I/A Court H.R., Case of the Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community v. Nicaragua. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 31, 2001. Series C No. 79, para. 149. I/A Court H.R., Case of the Yakye Axa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 17, 2005. Series C No. 125, para. 137. I/A Court H.R., Case of the Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of March 29, 2006. Series C No. 146, para. 118. 305 Article 2(e) of Decree No. 5-A of April 23, 1982. “Adjudication under any guise is prohibited of the state lands included and described: … (e) In the area of the Kuna and Emberá indigenous comarcas whose demarcation is entrusted to the National Bureau of Indigenous Policy and the leaders of those communities. While that physical demarcation is determined, the Kuna and Emberá communities may veto requests for adjudication of plots that belong to the territories of those comarcas.”