Brazil’s Supreme Sides with Indians Ousted from their Ancestral Lands

    Raposa Serra do Sol Indians

    Raposa Serra do Sol Indians Brazilian Supreme Court’s (STF) Commission on Jurisprudence denied the request of the National Agriculture and Livestock Confederation (CNA) that October 5, 1988, be the mark for the so-called “traditional indigenous occupation of land.”

    Brazil’s federal Constitution states that “lands traditionally occupied by indigenous peoples” have to be recognized, demarcated and safeguarded by the government as indigenous territory.

    As the Constitution was promulgated on October 5, 1988, the Federal Court judges concluded that this date be the temporal mark for the determination whether land was to be considered “traditionally occupied” or not, in the turbulent case on the contested demarcation of Raposa Serra do Sol, in the Northern state of Roraima.

    This led the National Agriculture and Livestock Confederation to propose that this temporal mark be applied to all demarcation cases of indigenous areas. A so-called sumula vinculante, or binding abridgement in legal terms.

    This would have created great obstacles in the demarcation process, because many indigenous peoples did not live right on their ancestral lands in 1988. Many of them had been expelled of their territory long before this date, over the course of decades, mostly by force of the expanding agriculture, in violent circumstances, with or without explicit help of the authorities and always against their will.

    The Committee on Jurisprudence of the Supreme Court deferred the proposal on March 18. They concluded that the request of the CNA, first of all, did not meet the formal requisites of such a proposal and, secondly, that it is necessary to have various similar decisions in different court cases to justify a binding abridgement.

    This is not the case. The Raposa Serra do Sol case was the first ruling that discussed this date as a temporal mark and made clear that even with this mark, there would be many possible exceptions. For example, in cases of forced removal of the indigenous community concerned.

    The CIMI (Indigenist Missionary Council), through its Juridical Advisor, together with the indigenous organizations, had elaborated an opinion against the petition of the CNAP.

    Tags:

    • Show Comments (0)

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

    comment *

    • name *

    • email *

    • website *

    This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

    Ads

    You May Also Like

    As Expected, Brazil’s Key Interest Rate Drops to Still High 15.75%

    Wednesday, April 19, Brazil’s equivalent of the Fed, the Monetary Policy Committee (Comitê de ...

    Collor de Mello four years after the fall

    Four years ago this month the Brazilian congress made a decision that would send ...

    Brazil’s Lula Calls Blair and Again Proposes Summit of G-8 and G-20

    Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, on Tuesday, January 31, telephoned the Prime ...

    Playing Safer

    The first cases of AIDS in Brazil were diagnosed in São Paulo and Rio ...

    Brazil’s Petrobras Wax Poetic on Bolivian Sovereignty

    Petrobras released Thursday morning, May 11, an official note from the Brazilian Ministry of ...

    Chief of Staff Resignation Makes Brazil Go Shopping

    Latin American shares powered higher, lead by gains from both Brazil and Mexico. Brazilian ...

    Bolivia-Brazil Oil Talks Have Broken Down

    Following a report this week by the Spanish news agency EFE, Petrobras admitted Wednesday, ...

    Brazil Has 8 Judges, But Only 2 Public Defenders per 100,000 People

    Brazil’s National Justice Council (Conselho Nacional de Justiça), which is presided over by Supreme ...

    Brazil Having Hard Time to Get Message Out on Cancer of the Uterus

    The head of Brazil’s Special Secretariat for Women’s Policies, Minister Nilcéa Freire, says that ...