7 f. “the closing of the Changuinola river canal is expected to be completed by 2011 and the reservoir process [would be] conducted during a one-month period, depending on the weather conditions.” The State indicated that the reservoir would be built in an area that “represents less than 1% of the total area of the ‘Protection Forest’;” g. the relocation of the communities would take place “within the same environment, more or less 500 meters from where they were settled” and with “the benefit of ownership of the collective lands,” thus they will continu[e] to live in the lands where they have always lived, and w[ill] have access to health, education, roads, work, and the agreed compensations.” Also, the State referred to a press conference held in March 2010, with the Office for Civil Rights, in which the leaders of the communities of Charco La Pava and Changuinola Arriba expressed that that communities were satisfied with the agreements signed with the company and the State, as well as the resettlement and the compensations, and that they were awaiting the delivery of the collective lands. Regarding the compensations, the president of the Community Charco La Pava indicated that “the affected communities are being paid” the amount of “twelve million dollars.” Regarding the resettlement, the president indicated that “after the reservoir” the remaining lands are “those that [they] want to use” and that they “know that the pieces that remain after the reservoir are the lands that [they] need for the communities.” He said that this would be “where the Charco community is, at a location further up from this one;” h. that “it [had] 99% of the families’ agreement with the hydroelectric project,” that only “10 families” are “pending the final agreements” and that “the communities, through their accredited representatives, [had] testified that the company had complied with the compensations;” i. “the Firemen of Panama” require the company “to use internationally recognized security protocols” at the time of the detonations. It assured that “such security protocols are conducted rigorously;” j. in March 2010, according to assessments by the ANAM, “there w[as] no type of air or water contamination in the area.” Also, on April 19, 2010, the State submitted photos of the Changuinola River “where you could see that despite the construction works, the waters remain crystal clear, with native fish.” The State indicated that it is “follow[ing] the parameters and recommendations to minimize environmental impact;” k. “there [is] no police presence in the area where the hydroelectric project is developed, and there is a peaceful and calm environment in the communities.” The State added that “since the dialogue began, none of the natives have been deprived of free transit, and there [have been] no violent incidents or reports of harassment to the indigenous people,” instead there is “a climate of respect and dialogue with the communities.” The State also highlighted that “the restrictions claimed by the petitioners are based on access to the restricted work areas, […] not to the area where the communities are;” l. regarding the continuous processes of consultation with the families, the State reported that “in the cases where the families did not master the Spanish language, a Ngöbe translator assisted them.” The State claimed that “the recommendations given by the Special Rapporteur were followed [...] establishing [the aforementioned] High Level Commission, to serve the communities and accomplish the signing of the agreements and compensations,” and m. the “individuals cited [by the] petitioners as alleged inhabitants of Guayabal” lack arguments that these individuals “live and carry out their daily, family, and social