Report No. 125 (2020) IACHR. Petition No. 1528-09 (Panamá)

• Petition Number: 1528-09
• Report Number: 125
• Case Type: Admissibility
• Court: Inter-American Comission of Human Rights
• Alleged Victim: Comunidades Kunas de Gardi, Comarca Kuna Yala Región de Nurdargana

REPORT No. 125/20

PETITION 1528-09

ADMISSIBILITY REPORT

KUNAS DE G.C., KUNA YALA DISTRICT, NURDARGANA REGION

PANAMA

OEA/Ser.L/V/II.

D.. 135

25 April 2020

Original: Spanish

Approved electronically by the Commission on April 25, 2020

Cite as: IACHR, Report No. 125/20. A.. Kunas de G.C., K.Y.D., Nurdargana Region. Panama. April 25, 2020.

www.cidh.org

www.iachr.org

1. INFORMATION ABOUT THE PETITION

Petitioner	Atencio López Martínez, H.H.G., the Corporation of Indigenous Lawyers of Panama and the Kuna General Congress of Kuna Yala
Alleged victim	K. de G.C., K.Y.D., Nurdargana Region – Playa Colorada.
Respondent State	Panama1
Rights invoked	Articles 4 (right to life), 7 (right to personal liberty), 10 (right to compensation), 12 (freedom of conscience and religion), 17 (rights of the family), 19 (rights of the child), and 21 (right to property) of the American Convention on Human Rights2 in relation to Articles 1.1 (obligation to respect rights) and 2 (domestic legal effects); Articles I (life, liberty and personal security), III (religious freedom and worship), V (protection of honor, personal reputation and private and family life), VI (right to a family and to the protection thereof), VII (protection for mothers and children), XI (preservation of health and well-being), XIII (benefits of culture) and XXIII (property) of the American Declaration on the Rights and Duties of Men. 3

2. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE IACHR⁴

Filing of the petition	November 30, 2009
Additional information received at the stage of initial review:	D. 23 and 24, 2015
Notification of the petition	J. 16, 2016
S.’s first response	October 18, 2016
Additional observations from the petitioner	May, 30 and October 24, 2017; and J. 26, J. 5 and 12, 2018
Additional observations from the State	September 7, 2017 and July 16, 2018.

3. COMPETENCE

Ratione personae:	Yes
Ratione loci:	Yes
Ratione temporis:	Yes
Ratione materiae:	Yes, American Convention on Human Rights (instrument of ratification deposited on J. 22, 1978)

4. DUPLICATION OF PROCEDURES AND INTERNATIONAL RES JUDICATA, COLORABLE CLAIM, EXHAUSTION OF DOMESTIC REMEDIES AND TIMELINESS OF THE PETITION

Duplication of procedures and international res judicata	No
Rights declared admissible	Articles 4 (right to life), 5 (right to humane treatment), 8 (right to a fair trial), 12 (freedom of conscience and religion), 17 (rights of the family), 21 (right to property), 22 (freedom of movement and residence), 24 (right to equal protection) and 25 (right to judicial protection) in relation to Articles 1.1 and 2 of the American Convention; and Article XIII of the American Declaration.
E. or exception to the exhaustion of remedies	Yes, in the terms of Section VI
Timeliness of the petition	Yes, in the terms of Section VI

5. SUMMARY OF ALLEGED FACTS

1. The petition under analysis is presented on behalf of the members of the Kunas de G. indigenous communities in view of the alleged massive titling and privatization of their territories by the Panamanian State, in particular the territories of Nurdargana. According to the information presented, the petitioners argue that, although they have exhausted internal dialogue and legal remedies under P. law, there is an imminent danger to the survival of the indigenous communities due to the loss of their ancestral collective lands.

2. In this regard, the petitioners describe the Kuna People of Kuna Yala (also referred to as the "Guna People") as an indigenous people with origins prior to the Spanish conquest, whose first settlement took place in the Dagargunyala region, now part of Colombia, and, during the 16th and 17th centuries, in their current territories in the Darien region which is part of Panama and Colombia. They detail that the Kuna People have maintained in these territories, places of planting, hunting and gathering, including medicinal plants, their sacred sites and have sustained a system of community life in which the use of the islands and coastal marine resources is part of the customs of the communities.

3. The petitioners describe that historically there had been a gradual process of state recognition of collective ownership of Kuna indigenous lands from Cabo de Tiburón to Piedra Negra, which included Nurdargana (Playa Colorada). H., the petitioners explain that with the independence of Panama and thereafter the P. authorities have established administrative boundaries that divide the Kuna indigenous territory without the participation of Kuna indigenous leaders. In that regard, they explain that, as part of these demarcations, a part of the Kuna territory was subsumed under the province of Colón and then became part of the San Blas district and, in particular, the Nurdargana territory was included under the Santa Isabel district, in the province of Colón. They claim that, while the Kunda indigenous territory in the San Blas district was recognized as an indigenous reserve following Law 59 of December, 1930,⁵ the Kuna people have repeatedly insisted that the Kuna indigenous lands in the Nurdargana sector are an important part of the ancestral territory, representing more than 5,000 hectares of land and watersheds on which more than 200 indigenous families depend and are part of their traditional community life.

4. In this regard, the petitioners argue that the Kuna General Congress has requested legal recognition of the lands of Nurdargana, from 1918 to the present date, through several letters sent to State representatives and has even participated in meetings with State representatives from 2000 to 2014, among other actions.⁶ They argue that the G.K. communities exercised the territorial rights of use, occupation and collective tenure over the Nurdargana lands until 2004, despite the fact that the legal dispossession over the lands, including access to natural resources in their territories, had occurred since 2005, when the first individual land titles were granted.

5. S., the petitioners allege that, as a result of an initiative by the World Bank and the Panamanian government, a program for the mass land titling at the national level called the National Land Program (“PRONAT”) was established in 2000. In response to this project, they describe that the Kuna General Congress raised concerns regarding the claim over the Nurdargana lands and, consequently, a tenure study of the lands called “S. and tenure study in a proposed area between the boundaries of the Guna Yala Region and the District of Santa Isabel” was carried out within the framework of PRONAT. The petitioners describe that said study confirmed the possession of the Nurdargana lands by the Kunas de G. communities, even if they were not within the Kuna Yala District.

6. They emphasize, however, that as a consequence of this initiative and as a result of the tenure study, various titling processes were initiated on the indigenous lands located in Nurdargana by non-indigenous persons. In particular, they argue that at least 12 property titles over indigenous lands had been granted to individuals under irregular titling processes, who then immediately transferred them to companies they owned to prevent the titles from being annulled. They indicate that the indigenous congress was aware of these land titling and, consequently, since May 2009, filed administrative claims for the protection of human rights before the Supreme Court of Justice, requesting the nullification of the resolutions issued by the National Directorate of Agrarian Reform. In such claims, they alleged the violation of the right to collective property in the absence of demarcation of the Comarca by the National Boundary Commission of the Ministry of Government and Justice, and the lack of notification to the Kuna Congress. ⁷

7. In this regard, they describe that two cases were withdrawn because the Kuna Congress found in inspections carried out that these were not traditional lands. In relation to the others, they detail that the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice issued respective decisions in which it held that the resolutions are legal as the lands are outside the K.Y.D., denying the claims contained in the lawsuits.⁸

8. The petitioners also indicate that, as of November 2003, the Kuna Congress had filed 20 opposition claims before the National Directorate of Agrarian Reform against applications for the allocation of untitled land, in accordance with Law 37 of September 21 of 1962.⁹ In this regard, they indicate that several of these processes before the National Directorate of Agrarian Reform have not yet been resolved and despite the fact that the Director of Agrarian Reform had suspended them, these were reactivated based on...