69 American Convention to the detriment of the indigenous peoples Kuna of the Madungandí and the Emberá of Bayano and their members, in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2. b) Obligation to provide an adequate and effective procedure for protection of the territories and natural resources of the indigenous peoples vis-à-vis third persons 262. According to the case-law of the inter-American system, the States are under an obligation to adopt measures to guarantee and give legal certainty to the rights of indigenous and tribal peoples with respect to ownership of their properties, among other means by establishing special, swift, and effective mechanisms or procedures to resolve legal claims over such property. As the InterAmerican Court has indicated, the procedures in question must comply with the rules of due process as in any other procedure whose decision may affect the rights of persons. The effective remedies that the States must offer under Article 25 of the American Convention “must be substantiated according to the 356 rules of due legal process (Article 8 of the Convention).” 263. In addition, the IACHR has indicated that when land disputes emerge with third persons, indigenous and tribal peoples have the right to obtain protection and reparation through adequate and effective procedures; to be guaranteed the effective enjoyment of their right to property; to have an effective investigation and punishment of those responsible for such attacks; and to having swift special mechanisms established that are effective for solving the legal disputes over the ownership of their 357 lands. 264. In the instant case, as the IACHR has found, the failure to take effective actions to prevent the invasion and illegal deforestation of the indigenous territory, and to effectively protect the territory and natural resources of the alleged victims, made possible the interference in and gradual appropriation of non-indigenous persons in the territories claimed by the alleged victims, as well as the illegal logging by third persons. 265. This happened despite the fact that the alleged victims signed numerous agreements with state authorities and despite the issuance of resolutions that sought the eviction of the non358 indigenous persons and the halt of the illegal logging. Nonetheless, such agreements and resolutions did not provide effective protection for the territories of the Kuna and Emberá peoples of Bayano. The alleged victims also pursued administrative remedies and filed criminal complaints with the objective of obtaining protection for their territories and natural resources, whose conformity with the obligations contained in the American Convention is analyzed next. Administrative remedies for the protection of the indigenous territory and natural resources vis-àvis the invasion of third persons 356 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. 62. Case of the Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of March 29, 2006. Series C No. 146, paras. 82, 83. 357 IACHR, Indigenous and Tribal Peoples’ Rights over their Ancestral Lands and Natural Resources: Norms and Jurisprudence of the Inter-American Human Rights System. OEA/Ser.L/V/II.Doc.56/09, December 30, 2009, para. 113. IACHR, Democracy and Human Rights in Venezuela. Doc. OEA/Ser.L/V/II, Doc. 54, December 30, 2009, paras. 1062-1066; 1071; 1137 – Recommendations 1 to 4. IACHR, Third Report on the Human Rights Situation in Colombia. Doc. OEA/Ser.L/V/II.102, Doc. 9 rev. 1, February 26, 1999, paras. 21-27 and Recommendation 3. 358 Annex 30. Agreement of March 23, 1990. Annex 18 to petitioners’ initial petition of May 11, 2000; and Annex 11 to the State’s communication of June 29, 2001; Annex 31. Working Agreement for the Renewed Land Use Management of Alto Bayano signed by the Provincial Government of Panamá and the Kuna People of Wacuco, Ipetí and other Communities of July 16, 1991. Annex to the summary of the petitioners’ intervention during the admissibility hearing of November 12, 2001; Annex 32. Resolution 002 of January 24, 1992. Annex 19 to petitioners’ initial petition of May 11, 2000; and Annex 14 to the State’s communication of June 29, 2001; Annex 33. Resolution 63 of March 17, 1992. Annex 20 to petitioners’ initial petition of May 11, 2000; and Annex 13 to the State’s communication of June 29, 2001.