54 lands of equal extension and quality, which will be chosen by agreement with the members of the 289 indigenous peoples, according to their own consultation and decision procedures. 198. In the instant case, the IACHR has accepted as proven that on May 8, 1969, the State 2 adopted Cabinet Decree 123 by which it alienated an area of 1,124.24 km , belonging to the nonadjudicable areas of the Bayano Reserve, which constituted the ancestral territory of the Kuna people of Madungandí and the Emberá people of Bayano. From 1972 to 1976 the State built the Ascanio Villalaz 2 Hydroelectric Complex, which entailed the creation of a manmade lake of approximately 350 km . 199. Based on the information available to it and as has been affirmed by the parties, the IACHR observes that said project entailed the flooding of the ancestral territory of the Kuna people of Madungandí and the Emberá of Bayano. In that regard, the IACHR understands that restitution of those territories would not be materially possible, as they are under the manmade lake created by the dam. If restitution of their ancestral territories to the indigenous peoples of Bayano is impossible, the state obligation to grant them reparation through alternative lands and/or by payment of just and prompt compensation takes on special relevance. As determined in the facts proven in this report, the State undertook precisely to grant such compensation. The IACHR will refer to economic reparations at this point and to the performance of its obligations in relation to the lands granted in the following section. 200. As has been considered proven, the State repeatedly agreed to pay individual and collective compensation to the Kuna people of Madungandí and the Emberá of Bayano, and their members. Nonetheless, in the face of the petitioners’ allegation regarding the failure of the State to pay such compensation, the State did not show that it was carrying out this commitment; to the contrary, the information available to the IACHR leads it to conclude that those amounts were not actually paid, constantly breaching the legal commitements made between 1973 and 2010. 201. In this respect, the IACHR observes that on July 8, 1971, Cabinet Decree 156 was issued, which established a “Special Compensation Assistance Fund for the Indigenous of Bayano” that established the payment of 30% of the total amount of the revenues of the Forestry Fund of the State, established as of January 1, 1971, and those revenues that come in from the promulgation of that Decree and for three years from that date. In addition, as has been considered proven, point 2 of the Agreement of Fuerte Cimarrón – signed by representative of the Corporación del Bayano, the National Guard, and representatives of the Kuna people of Madungandí – established a new timetable for updating the commitments to pay compensation on which the government was delinquent. In addition, in 1980 the Kuna indigenous people of Madungandí signed an agreement with the then-Vice President of the Republic, Ricardo De La Espriella, which extended the payment of compensation to eight years. The IACHR understands that the signing of subsequent agreements is evidence of the failure to carry out the first ones. 202. Along these lines, during the stage of the procedure before the IACHR when a friendly settlement was being pursued, an Indigenous-Government Commission was established with the participation of traditional authorities of the Kuna and Emberá peoples of Bayano, and authorities from the national, provincial, and local governments. The IACHR notes that one of the sub-commissions formed referred precisely to “Compensations and Costs,” whose objective was “to review the compensation for the Kuna Comarca of Madungandí and to quantify the new compensation for the Kuna and the Emberá on an individual, comarca, and community basis.” 203. In addition, as the IACHR has considered proven, as part of the actions for reaching a friendly settlement agreement, the petitioners commissioned the preparation of the “Technical SocioEconomic Report on Compensation and Investment: Kuna Comarca of Madungandí and Emberá Collective Lands of Piriatí, Ipetí, and Maje Cordillera,” submitted to the Ministry of Interior and Justice on May 12, 2003. Subsequently, in July 2009, a new study called “Technical Socio-Economic Report on 289 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. 135.