68 request on January 26, 2011. Nonetheless, nearly three years after the procedure was initiated pursuant to Law 72, the communities that make up the Emberá people of Bayano have not obtained formal recognition of their territories, nor have they been effectively demarcated and delimited. In the opinion of the IACHR, the procedure established in that law has proven ineffective in the instant case in relation to the Emberá people of Bayano, insofar as it has yet to provide a definitive and satisfactory solution to their claim. 258. The IACHR emphasizes that as established repeatedly in the case-law of the interAmerican human rights system, the obligations of the State in relation to the territorial rights of indigenous peoples entail not only formal recognition of their collective property rights, but also the delimitation and demarcation of their territories, for “merely abstract or juridical recognition of indigenous lands, territories, 351 or resources, is practically meaningless if the property is not physically delimited and established.” Nonetheless, Law 72 and its regulation established only a “procedure of adjudication of the collective property rights of indigenous peoples’ lands,” without making reference to obligations of physical demarcation once the property was adjudicated. 259. In addition, the IACHR considers it appropriate at this stage to note that despite the failings pointed out of the process of adopting statutes creating comarcas to recognize territorial rights, from the material standpoint, in addition to the collective titling of the territories ancestrally occupied by the indigenous peoples, these laws presuppose the recognition and guarantee of their traditional 352 authorities in the context of the respective comarca in different areas of government , administration of 353 354 355 justice , education , and use of natural resources , among others. While the IACHR attaches a positive value to the establishment of a legal mechanism to make possible the formal recognition of the collective property rights of indigenous peoples in Panama – although it bears in mind that said mechanism was not first consulted with the indigenous peoples – it understands that the mechanism cannot exclude rights of indigenous peoples that are associated mainly with the right to self-government according to their traditional uses and customs, safeguarded through the laws establishing comarcas or other instruments which, as mentioned, have won international recognition. 260. In light of Articles 8(1) and 25 of the Convention, the Panamanian State has the obligation to provide the indigenous communities of the Emberá people of Bayano an effective and efficient remedy for solving their territorial claim, the duty to ensure that those communities are heard with the proper guarantees, and the duty to make a determination, in a reasonable time, in order to guarantee the rights and obligations of the persons subject to its jurisdiction. 261. In view of the foregoing, the Commission considers that the State has not guaranteed an effective and efficient remedy for the recognition, titling, demarcation, and delimitation of the territories claimed by the alleged victims, keeping them from being heard in a process with the proper guarantees. Therefore, the Commission concludes that the State of Panama violated Articles 25 and 8 of the 351 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. 143. 352 See Articles 5 to 7 of Law 24, creating the Kuna Comarca of Madungandí, Article 10 of Law 22 that creates the special legal regime of the Emberá Comarca of Darién; Articles 3 to 6 of Law 34, creating the Kuna Comarca of Wargandi; Articles 17 to 39 of Law 10 of March 11, 1997, which creates the Ngöbe-Buglé Comarca. 353 See Article 12 of Law 16 by which “the Comarca of San Blas is organized,” subsequently called Comarca of Kuna Yala; Article 15 of Law 22, which creates the special legal regime for the Emberá Comarca of Darién; Articles 40 and 41 of Law 10, which creates the Ngöbe-Buglé Comarca; Article 7 of Law 34, which creates the Kuna Comarca of Wargandi. 354 See Articles 17 to 20 of Law 16 by which “the Comarca de San Blas is organized,” subsequently called Comarca of Kuna Yala; Article 21 of Law 22, which creates the special legal regime of the Emberá Comarca of Darién; Article 16 of Law 24, which created the Kuna Comarca of Madungandí; Article 54 of Law 10, which creates the Ngöbe-Buglé Comarca; Article 14 of Law 34, which creates the Kuna Comarca of Wargandi. 355 See Article 19 of Law 22, which creates the special legal regime for the Emberá Comarca of Darién; Article 9 of Law 24 which creates the Kuna Comarca of Madungandí; Article 50 of Law 10, which creates the Ngöbe-Buglé Comarca; Articles 9 to 13 of Law 34, which creates the Kuna Comarca of Wargandi.