58 306 between the territories occupied by those indigenous peoples ; (iv) the Mutual Agreement of August 15, 1984, in which the Corporación Bayano undertook to “take all steps necessary to see the attainment of the indigenous aspirations as regards the full demarcation of the Emberá Reserve in the areas of Ipetí 307 and Piriatí” ; (v) the Plan of Action adopted in 1999 by the Darién Sustainable Development Program, under the Ministry of Economy and Finance, which recommended the demarcation, delimitation, and marking of the lands of the indigenous communities of Ipetí and Piriatí; (vi) Article 2 of Executive Decree 267 of 2002, extending the scope of application of Executive Decree 267, which carves out an exception 308 for the adjudication of the collective lands of the Emberá population of Piriatí and Ipetí ; (vii) Resolution No. D. N. 132-2003 of the National Bureau of Agrarian Reform of 2003, which suspends all processing of requests for adjudication and transfers of possessory rights to lots situated within the area occupied by 309 the Emberá populations of Ipetí and Piriatí ; and (viii) the “Agreement on Action and Decision” signed in November 2011, among the authorities of the Emberá people and representatives of the ANAT and the Ministry of Interior and Justice, by which the state authorities undertake to proceed with the collective titling of their lands. 219. The IACHR cannot fail to note that despite the existence of acts that recognized, directly and indirectly, the collective property rights of the Emberá communities over the lands of Piriatí and Ipetí, the State, throughout the procedure before the IACHR, maintained contradictory positions that went from expressly recognizing their territorial rights to denying the existence of a “special regime for the purposes 310 of tenure, conservation, and use by the indigenous population.” This ambivalence is a reflection of its actions domestically, which, as the IACHR has been able to observe, have been characterized by the signing of commitments, and the subsequent denial of them, which has resulted in the situation of formal non-recognition of their property rights that continues to affect them, constantly breaching its commitments. 220. In addition, it has been considered proven that on October 27, 2009, the Emberá communities of Bayano filed a request for adjudication of lands with the National Bureau of Agrarian Reform, based on Law 72. As the IACHR has verified, while some steps were taken by the administrative agencies in charge of processing that request, approximately three years after the procedures required were initiated, to date their property rights over their traditional territory have not received effective protection. 221. Yet in addition to breaching the commitments acquired to formally recognize their territorial rights, which the IACHR has considered proven, state authorities adjudicated plots situated in the territory claimed by the Emberá people of Bayano to third persons, granting them individual property titles. In the opinion of the IACHR, this entails a total repudiation of the legal obligations assumed by the 306 Annex 24. Agreement of September 6, 1983. Annex 14 to petitioners’ initial petition of May 11, 2000; and Annex 7 to the State’s communication of June 29, 2001. 307 Annex 26. Agreement of Mutual Accord, August 15, 1984. Annex to the summary of the petitioners’ intervention during the admissibility hearing of November 12, 2001. 308 Annex 42. Article 2 of Executive Decree 267 of October 2, 2002. “The following lands shall be exempted from the application of this Decree: … 2. The collective lands of the Emberá population of Ipetí and Piriatí, in the district of Chepo, province of Panamá.” 309 By Resolution No. D. N. 132-2003 of March 18, 2003, the Agrarian Reform Bureau of the Ministry of Agricultural Development established as follows: “To suspend all processing of applications for adjudication and transfers of possessory rights over lands situated within the area occupied by the Emberá populations of Ipetí and Piriatí, in the district of Chepo, province of Panamá.” State’s brief of October 3, 2011, received by the IACHR October 4, 2011. 310 Specifically, the State in briefs before the IACHR argued: “The Emberá people of Bayano inhabit state lands and those lands do not have a special regime for purposes of their tenure, conservation, and use by the indigenous population.” Communication of the State of May 18, 2007, received by the IACHR May 22, 2007; and Additional observations on the merits presented by the State by brief of April 27, 2010, received by the IACHR May 3, 2010. In another brief the State noted: “The case of the Emberá of Ipetí and Piriatí is very different because they are two communities which in conjunction with other Emberá communities are attempting to define their legal situation over the land, administration, and organization, a proposal that is in the Legislative Assembly by the initiative of the interested parties. The legal definition has involved persons of black [ethnicity] and peasants who share, with the Emberá the area known as the province of Darién.”