42 210 hundred balboas), to be paid severally to four persons. Nonetheless, the IACHR was not informed that this sanction was enforced. To the contrary, according to the petitioners, and based on information not 211 controverted by the State, it has not been enforced. 160. Subsequently, the Corporación de Abogados Indígenas filed a complaint with the ANAM for illegal logging in the area of La Playita, Playa Chuzo, in the Kuna Comarca of Madungandí. The ANAM made a visit on March 14 and 15, 2007, in which it observed three areas of secondary forest that had been logged, with an area of approximately three hectares, thus it concluded in Technical Report No. 18 that there had been a violation of Article 80 of the Forestry Law, and it was recommended to reinforce 212 oversight by the ANAM and the Police. The record does not include any evidence of the application of a sanction vis-à-vis the mentioned violation of the Forestry Law. To the contrary, in response to the request for information in this respect by the IACHR, the petitioners stated: “We have persistently requested information from the ANAM yet they have not responded as to whether they sanctioned Messrs. Irineo, Iván, and Arnulfo Batista and Pascual Abrego (sic)” and “as for the technical report, it 213 does not provide us any information on it.” c) Administrative proceedings for the adjudication of collective property rights 161. The Emberá of Bayano took several initiatives over the years, particularly before the President of the Republic, to obtain recognition of their collective property rights over their lands. Certainly in the documents produced by the parties that are part of the record before the IACHR it appears that on June 13, 1995, the Emberá communities of Ipetí and Piriatí filed a request for demarcation and titling of collective lands before the Cabinet Council of the President of the Republic of Panama, for the purpose of obtaining legal recognition of their lands. That request was filed under Article 12 of the Agrarian Code, which provides that: “For adjudications or transfers that exceed 500 hectares, the approval of the Cabinet 214 Council shall be necessary.” 162. In response to this petition, the chief counsel to the Presidency issued Note No. 159-95LEG of August 2, 1995, by which, making reference to Article 123 of the Constitution – Article 127 of the current Constitution – he demanded that certain requirements, not expressly contained in this provision, 215 be met. Accordingly, Aresio Valiente, member of the Indigenous Program of CEALP, requested an appointment to address that matter, but did not obtain a response, according to the information available 216 to the IACHR. 210 That sanction was based on Law 1, of February 3, 1994, “by which the forestry legislation is established in the Republic of Panama, and other provisions are issued” and Board of Directors Resolution No. 05-98 of January 22, 1998. In particular, Article 106(2) of this Resolution provides: “When logging or the destruction of forest resources impedes evaluating the volume of timber and/or the number of trees affected, a minimum sanction shall be applied of …. For young secondary forest (stubble) … (B/.1,000.00). When the infraction consists of the destruction of the undergrowth the fines shall correspond to 50% of the foregoing figures….” Annex 76. Resolution ARAPE – AGICH-030-2007 issued by the ANAM May 21, 2007. State’s brief of July 17, 2007, received by the IACHR August 14, 2007. 211 Petitioners’ brief of July 13, 2012, received by the IACHR the same day. 212 Annex 77. Technical Report No. 18 issued by the National Environmental Authority. Annex to State’s brief of June 15, 2007, received by the IACHR June 18, 2007. 213 Petitioners’ brief of May 16, 2012, received by the IACHR the same day. 214 Annex 78. Request for demarcation and titling of collective lands, June 13, 1995. Annex 26 to petitioners’ initial petition of May 11, 2000. 215 In particular, it is indicated that the request should meet the following requirements: (i) steps to measure the area in order to obtain the cartographic expression; (ii) bureaucratic transactions, formalities, and other requirements of the property titles that are granted administratively by the Bureau of Agrarian Reform, which should issue the Resolution on Adjudication if it considers it appropriate; (iii) number of members relocated from the Ipeti-Emberá Community especially its productive population and (iv) certification of Mr. Bonarge Pacheco as cacique of the Ipeti-Emberá community. Annex 96. Note No. 159-95-LEG of August 2, 1995 issued by the Director of Legal Counsel to the Presidency. Annex 27 to the petitioners’ initial petition of May 11, 2000. 216 Annex 79. Letter of September 8, 1995. Annex 28 to petitioners’ initial petition of May 11, 2000.