hide message

Welcome to the Resource Centre

We make it our mission to work with advocates in civil society, business and government to address inequalities of power, seek remedy for abuse, and ensure protection of people and planet.

Both companies and impacted communities thank us for the resources and support we provide.

This is only possible because of your support. Please make a donation today.

Thank you,
Phil Bloomer, Executive Director

Donate now hide message

You are being redirected to the story the piece of content is found in so you can read it in context. Please click the following link if you are not automatically redirected within a couple seconds:

Brazil: Federal Supreme Court maintains rules for indigenous areas

Author: Letícia Casado e Rubens Valente, Folha de Sao Paulo/UOL (Brazil), Published on: 17 August 2017

"Federal Supreme Court Maintains Rules for Indigenous Areas", 17 August 2017

In a unanimous decision on Wednesday the 16th, the Federal Supreme Court (STF) ruled against the government of Mato Grosso which was seeking indemnification for the expropriation of land for the Xingu national park and for reservations occupied by Nhambiquaras and Parecis Indians...[T]he justices found that the Indians had already been occupying the area, which belongs to the Federal Government, and that the State has no standing to seek redress. The court analyzed two cases by the state government questioning the possession of the areas by Indians. Both were rejected. Mato Grosso had been demanding indemnification from the Federal Government and FUNAI (National Indian Foundation) arguing that the areas had been improperly included in the limits of the Xingu park, without any compensation paid by the Federal Government. It also argued that the Indians weren't living in the region when the demarcation was effected...For...[FUNAI]..., the lands are "immemorially indigenous". The State argued that the areas have belonged to it since the 1891 Constitution, but the Federal Government, which is the other party in the case, argued that the government of Mato Grosso was unable to prove ownership of the territory.

Read the full post here