61 323 restitution and effective protection of those territories. Even if the territorial rights and other rights of indigenous and tribal peoples are formally enshrined, the failure of the states to take the measures necessary for recognizing and ensuring those rights gives rise to situations of uncertainty among the 324 members of their communities. 228. Accordingly, the IACHR considers that the State of Panama has not guaranteed the right to property of the Kuna of Madungandí and the Emberá of Bayano, and their members, to their ancestral and traditional territory, therefore depriving them not only of the material possession of their territory, but also of the fundamental basis for developing their culture, spiritual life, integrity, and economic survival. Based on the foregoing considerations, the Commission considers that the State violated Article 21 of the American Convention to the detriment of the Kuna people of Madungandí and the Emberá people of Bayano, and their members, in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 of the Convention. c) Obligation of protection vis-à-vis third persons of the territory and natural resources of the indigenous peoples Kuna of the Madungandí and the Emberá of Bayano, and their members 229. The IACHR has indicated that indigenous and tribal peoples have the right to be protected from conflicts with third persons over the land through the prompt granting of title, and the delimitation and demarcation of their lands without delay, so as to prevent conflicts and attacks by 325 others. In this same vein, indigenous and tribal peoples and their members have a right to have their territory reserved for them, without there being settlements or the presence of non-indigenous third persons or settlers on their lands. The State has a correlative obligation to prevent the invasion or settlement of the indigenous or tribal territory by other persons, and to take initiatives and actions 326 necessary to relocate those non-indigenous inhabitants who may have settled there from the territory. 230. Following this line, the IACHR has established that the States are under an obligation to “Carry out the measures to delimit, demarcate and title or otherwise clarify and protect the corresponding lands of the [indigenous] people without detriment to other indigenous communities and, until those measures have been carried out, abstain from any acts that might lead the agents of the State itself, or third parties acting with its acquiescence or its tolerance, to affect the existence, value, use or enjoyment 327 of the property located in the geographic area occupied and used by the [indigenous] people.” The 323 IACHR, Third Report on the Situation of Human Rights in Paraguay. Doc. OEA/Ser./L/VII.110, Doc. 52, March 9, 2001, para. 50, Recommendation 1. 324 IACHR, Report No. 40/04, Case 12,053, Maya Indigenous Communities of the Toledo District v. Belize, October 12, 2004, para. 170. Applying these rules, in the case of the community of Awas Tingni the Inter-American Court said that “it [is] necessary to make the rights recognized by the Nicaraguan Constitution and legislation effective, in accordance with the American Convention. Therefore, pursuant to article 2 of the American Convention, the State must adopt in its domestic law the necessary legislative, administrative, or other measures to create an effective mechanism for delimitation and titling of the property of the members of the Awas Tingni Mayagna Community, in accordance with the customary law, values, customs and mores of that Community.” [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. 138]. In the same terms, in the case of the Sawhoyamaxa community v. Paraguay, the Inter-American Court explained that in light of the obligation derived from Article 1(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights, read together with Article 21: “Even though the right to communal property of the lands and of the natural resources of indigenous people is recognized in Paraguayan laws, such merely abstract or legal recognition becomes meaningless in practice if the lands have not been physically delimited and surrendered because the adequate domestic measures necessary to secure effective use and enjoyment of said right by the members of the Sawhoyamaxa Community are lacking.” [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. 143] 325 IACHR, Democracy and Human Rights in Venezuela. Doc. OEA/Ser.L/V/II, Doc. 54, December 30, 2009, para. 1137 – Recommendation 2. 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. 326 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. 114. 327 IACHR, Report No. 40/04, Case 12,053, Maya Indigenous Communities of the Toledo District v. Belize, October 12, 2004, para. 197 – Recommendation 2.