67 the actions taken by the indigenous peoples, thereby fostering the use of these practices, instead of creating permanent legal means for claiming their rights. 252. As regards the Kuna indigenous people of Madungandí, this long process of making territorial claims resulted in the adoption, on January 12, 1996, of Law 24 “by which the Kuna Comarca of Madungandí is established,” 20 years after signing the first agreement with the State. Nonetheless, in the case of the Emberá indigenous people of Bayano, the innumerable efforts made did not result in the recognition of their territorial rights. In addition, in both cases their territories went without being effective and promptly demarcated or delimited. 253. The IACHR also observes that given the lack of a suitable and effective mechanism for the recognition of indigenous property rights, on June 13, 1995, the communities of the Emberá people of Bayano presented a request for demarcation and titling to the Cabinet Council of the Presidency of the Republic, under Article 12 of the Agrarian Code, which was reiterated subsequently on January 27, 1999 to the Presidency of the Republic. The IACHR has considered it proven that none of those requests obtained a response. 254. The IACHR considers that in addition to having proved ineffective, that procedure cannot be considered suitable for the recognition of indigenous property rights, since it does not constitute a specific mechanism that permits the titling of lands occupied by indigenous peoples or their demarcation or delimitation, taking into account their particular characteristics, based on the historic occupation of the land. It is, on the contrary, a general titling mechanism for individual property, based on the productive use of the land, which ignores the special, unique, and internationally protected relationship that indigenous peoples have with their ancestral territories. In effect, as the Court has noted, in procedures involving indigenous territorial claims that refer to agrarian legislation “the yardstick is whether or not the claimed lands are rationally exploited, regardless of considerations specific to the indigenous peoples, 349 such as what lands mean for them.” 255. In summary, in the instant case the non-existence of a procedure in Panamanian legislation to enforce the right to property of the indigenous peoples has meant specifically that the State does not guarantee the right to property of the Kuna and Emberá peoples of Bayano to their ancestral territory. Consequently, the Commission considers that at least until the adoption of Law 72, the Panamanian legal order lacked a suitable and effective mechanism for the recognition, titling, demarcation, and delimitation of the territorial property of the indigenous peoples that took account of their particular characteristics, in violation of Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention, in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2. 256. As for the second aspect of the analysis, as indicated above, on December 23, 2008, Law 72 was approved. It “establishes the special procedure for the adjudication of collective property rights over the lands of the indigenous peoples who are not in the comarcas.” Subsequently, that law was regulated by Executive Decree 223 of July 7, 2010. While Article 4 of Law 72 establishes that the National Bureau of Agrarian Reform of the Ministry of Agricultural Development is the competent authority to carry out that procedure, with the adoption of Law 59 of October 8, 2010, this Bureau was replaced, in terms of 350 its authority, by the ANATI. 257. As has been shown, based on that law, on October 27, 2009, the representatives of the communities of the Emberá people of Bayano filed a request for adjudication of lands with the National Bureau of Agrarian Reform. After this entity was replaced by the ANATI, the alleged victims reiterated that 349 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. 104. See also Case of the Xákmok Kásek Indigenous Community v. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 24, 2010 Series C No. 214. para. 146. 350 Law 59, of October 8, 2010, “Law that creates the National Land Management Authority, unifies the competences of the General Bureau of Cadastre, the National Bureau of Agrarian Reform, the National Land Management Program, and the ‘Tommy Guardia’ National Geographic Institute.”