{"id":31481,"date":"2020-07-07T00:04:40","date_gmt":"2020-07-07T00:04:40","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/conectas.org\/?post_type=litigiopt&#038;p=31481"},"modified":"2021-05-20T14:46:45","modified_gmt":"2021-05-20T14:46:45","slug":"adpf-709-action-plan-for-indigenous-peoples","status":"publish","type":"litigiopt","link":"https:\/\/conectas.org\/en\/litigiopt\/adpf-709-action-plan-for-indigenous-peoples\/","title":{"rendered":"ADPF-709: action plan for indigenous peoples"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"tts_content_wrapper_1\" ><div id=\"attachment_29690\" style=\"width: 1034px\" class=\"wp-caption alignnone\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" aria-describedby=\"caption-attachment-29690\" class=\"wp-image-29690 size-large\" src=\"https:\/\/conectas.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/garimpo-munduruku_Marizilda-Cruppe-Amazo\u0302nia-Real-1024x683.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"1024\" height=\"683\" srcset=\"https:\/\/conectas.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/garimpo-munduruku_Marizilda-Cruppe-Amazo\u0302nia-Real-1024x683.jpg 1024w, https:\/\/conectas.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/garimpo-munduruku_Marizilda-Cruppe-Amazo\u0302nia-Real-966x644.jpg 966w, https:\/\/conectas.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/garimpo-munduruku_Marizilda-Cruppe-Amazo\u0302nia-Real-768x512.jpg 768w, https:\/\/conectas.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/garimpo-munduruku_Marizilda-Cruppe-Amazo\u0302nia-Real-1536x1024.jpg 1536w, https:\/\/conectas.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/garimpo-munduruku_Marizilda-Cruppe-Amazo\u0302nia-Real-350x233.jpg 350w, https:\/\/conectas.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/garimpo-munduruku_Marizilda-Cruppe-Amazo\u0302nia-Real-1152x768.jpg 1152w, https:\/\/conectas.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/garimpo-munduruku_Marizilda-Cruppe-Amazo\u0302nia-Real-1620x1080.jpg 1620w, https:\/\/conectas.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/garimpo-munduruku_Marizilda-Cruppe-Amazo\u0302nia-Real-1140x760.jpg 1140w, https:\/\/conectas.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/garimpo-munduruku_Marizilda-Cruppe-Amazo\u0302nia-Real.jpg 1999w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px\" \/><p id=\"caption-attachment-29690\" class=\"wp-caption-text\">Illegal mining in the Munduruku Indigenous Land, in the municipality of Jacareacanga. Photo: Marizilda Cruppe\/Amaz\u00f4nia Real<\/p><\/div>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The pandemic dealt another major blow to indigenous peoples in Brazil. Pressured by intruders, indigenous lands saw cases and deaths from Covid-19 soar. Vulnerable and with no quick access to health care and infrastructure, these communities were left to fend for themselves by the federal government, which has the constitutional responsibility to protect their physical and cultural survival.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Against this backdrop, APIB (Association of Indigenous Peoples of Brazil) and six political parties filed ADPF Case (Allegation of Violation of a Fundamental Precept) No. 709 in the Supreme Court denouncing the inaction and the failures of the federal government and demanding the preparation of an emergency plan to control the pandemic on indigenous lands. The request for an injunction was partially accepted by the rapporteur of the case, Justice Lu\u00eds Roberto Barroso, who ordered the federal government to present a series of measures to combat the situation.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">According to Conectas and ISA (Socioenvironmental Institute), which appeared as amicus curiae in the case, the result was positive, but overlooked a key element for the protection of indigenous peoples: the removal of intruders. The contribution of the organizations was accompanied by a <\/span><b>study conducted by ISA that demonstrates the real risks of contamination associated with intrusions. The study gives examples of seven indigenous lands that, together, accounted for 85% of the total deforestation registered in Brazil in 2019: Yanomami (Roraima\/Amazonas), Karipuna and Uru-Eu-Wau-Wau (Rond\u00f4nia), Trincheira Bacaj\u00e1, Kayap\u00f3 and Munduruku (Par\u00e1), and Ararib\u00f3ia (Maranh\u00e3o)<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">According to the Constitution, indigenous lands are intended for the exclusive use of Indians, while \u201cacts aimed at the occupation, domination and possession of the lands referred to in this article, or the exploitation of the natural wealth of the soil, rivers and lakes existing therein, are null and void and produce no legal effects\u201d. The Indian Statute, meanwhile, determines that \u201cin these areas, any person outside the tribal groups or indigenous communities is forbidden from hunting, fishing or picking fruit, as well as from practicing agricultural or extractive activities\u201d.<\/span><\/p>\n<hr \/>\n<h2><b>Technical information<\/b><\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><b>Case: ADPF-709<\/b><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><b>Court:\u00a0<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Supreme Court<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><b>Status:\u00a0<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Awaiting definitive analysis by the full bench of the Court\u00a0<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><b>Procedure:<\/b>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"2\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">6\/29\/20: case filed<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"2\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">7\/7\/20: request for admission as amicus curiae<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"2\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">7\/8\/20: injunction partially granted<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"2\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">9\/21\/20: public hearing and oral statement by Conectas<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/div><div class=\"tts__custom-position_bottom_fixed\" ><\/div>","protected":false},"featured_media":29691,"menu_order":0,"template":"","meta":{"ngg_post_thumbnail":0},"temaltigio":[12273],"categoria_litigio":[12976],"class_list":["post-31481","litigiopt","type-litigiopt","status-publish","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","temaltigio-socioenvironmental-rights","categoria_litigio-litigation"],"acf":{"subtitle-pt":"Injunction required federal government to take measures to protect indigenous lands, but not to remove intruders","noticias":{"noticia1":{"ID":22502,"post_author":"2","post_date":"2020-08-12 12:55:02","post_date_gmt":"2020-08-12 12:55:02","post_content":"<span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Early August was marked by a <\/span><b><a href=\"https:\/\/conectas.org\/noticias\/indigenas-na-pandemia-o-que-representa-a-acao-discutida-pelo-stf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\"><span style=\"text-decoration: underline; color: #0000ff;\">historic victory by indigenous peoples in the Brazilian <\/span><\/a>Judiciary<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">. A full session of the Supreme Court upheld an injunction granted by Justice Luis Roberto Barroso that requires the federal government to <\/span><b>adopt urgent measures to contain the spread of the pandemic in indigenous territories.<\/b>\r\n\r\n<span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Drafted by <\/span><a href=\"http:\/\/apib.info\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\"><span style=\"color: #0000ff;\"><strong><span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\">APIB (Association of Indigenous Peoples of Brazil)<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/a><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> in conjunction with the political parties PSB, PCdoB, PSOL, PT, REDE and PDT, the <\/span><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"><a href=\"http:\/\/portal.stf.jus.br\/processos\/detalhe.asp?incidente=5952986\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\"><span style=\"color: #0000ff;\"><strong><span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\">ADPF (Allegation of Violation of a Fundamental Precept)<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/a> Case No. 709<\/span><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> asks the Judiciary to order the government to adopt <\/span><b>measures to guarantee the protection of indigenous peoples<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> in the context of the serious epidemiological crisis.\u00a0The simple fact that APIB, an indigenous organization, was <\/span><b>recognized by the Supreme Court as legitimate to present this case<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> is, in itself, a significant achievement.<\/span>\r\n\r\n<span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">In an interview to Conectas, <\/span><b>Luiz Eloy Terena, legal adviser to APIB<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">,\u00a0explains the impact of the Supreme Court\u2019s decision and talks about the importance of this case for indigenous populations and about the new challenges they now face to get the Bolsonaro government to comply with the court ruling and implement the measures. Read the interview below:<\/span>\r\n\r\n<b>Conectas \u2013 What is the impact of the Supreme Court ruling for indigenous peoples?<\/b>\r\n\r\n<b>Luiz Eloy Terena \u2013<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">\u00a0There are two dimensions. The first impact is procedural, recognizing APIB\u2019s legitimacy to act within the scope of what we call constitutional jurisdiction, meaning APIB\u2019s legitimacy to file the ADPF case directly with the Supreme Court was recognized. This represents a landmark in Brazilian constitutional law and also in the history of the Brazilian indigenous movement.<\/span>\r\n\r\n<span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Another aspect concerns the content of the ruling. The Supreme Court did not actually grant everything we asked for, but it did come close. In particular by determining the preparation of a plan to bar entry into 31 indigenous lands where there are uncontacted or recently contacted peoples. It ordered the preparation of a plan to combat the virus among indigenous peoples in general and determined that the Brazilian government cater to all indigenous peoples irrespective of whether their land has been demarcated. This was very important for us because it addressed the denialism of the cultural identity of indigenous peoples and even, to a certain extent, the racism of the Brazilian government, which understands that only needs to cater to indigenous peoples living in demarcated areas. In other words, the government does not demarcate indigenous lands and still denies indigenous peoples these and other social rights, such as health care, access to drinking water and education.<\/span>\r\n\r\n<b>Conectas \u2013 APIB was recognized as a legitimate organization for filing this type of case in the Supreme Court. What does this represent?<\/b>\r\n\r\n<b>Luiz Eloy Terena \u2013<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">\u00a0It represents a break with a legal obstacle that existed before. For a long time, indigenous peoples were not considered rights-holders, they could not speak for themselves, they could not access the Judiciary on their own behalf; they always needed to depend on someone else. So, this is very significant in terms of overcoming indigenous guardianship, overcoming coloniality of law and also reasserting that indigenous peoples are rights-holders. This is fundamental.<\/span>\r\n\r\n<b>Conectas \u2013 What expectations are there that the government of President Jair Bolsonaro will comply with the ruling?<\/b>\r\n\r\n<b>Luiz Eloy Terena \u2013<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">\u00a0This is another challenge that we are dealing with at the moment. It has not been easy because not only does the Bolsonaro government have a very different position from that of indigenous peoples; it is, in fact, an anti-indigenous government. But we are noticing that in this context, both in the situation room and in the working group that is preparing the plan to combat the virus, and even from a technical point of view, these people find it very difficult to understand the specifics of indigenous peoples and, to a certain extent, understand how this depends much more on scientific improvement than on an ideological position. So, this is the difficulty we have been noticing. Because even the technical staff in the Bolsonaro government: they are to some extent denialists and they have difficulty basing the plans to combat the virus on health recommendations, the recommendations of health sector experts, so it has been a major challenge. It has not been easy.<\/span>\r\n\r\n<b>Conectas - One important request in the case, which concerns the expulsion of trespassers from seven indigenous lands, resulted in disagreements among the justices. How important is it for the Supreme Court to reach an understanding on this matter?<\/b>\r\n\r\n<b>Luiz Eloy Terena \u2013<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">\u00a0This was a very negative aspect of the Supreme Court\u2019s ruling. Although the justices recognized that trespassing exists on these indigenous lands and they also recognized that it is serious, they did not address the problem.<\/span>\r\n\r\n<span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Justice Barroso even mentioned a \u201cpolitical cost\u201d. We know that a political cost exists because a ruling like this affects political and economic interests. From mining and logging that obviously has the involvement of local politicians, the representatives of the country\u2019s agrarian elite. So, the question I ask is this: if the Supreme Court, which is the highest court in the country, does not have the courage to address this situation, who can we, indigenous peoples, turn to? I don\u2019t know. I really don\u2019t know. We turn to the Supreme Court because we know that this is, in fact, a political and economic situation that has been going on for a long time and that is a very serious violation of the rights of indigenous peoples. There is even a decision from the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights determining the expulsion of these trespassers and now we know that the Supreme Court too is not tackling this problem. But we see it as an issue that is still pending analysis in the Supreme Court and that could be addressed at a later date. So we, as lawyers of the indigenous movement, will continue working and monitoring these situations of violations and we do not rule out that the Supreme Court may once again hear this specific matter of trespassers.<\/span>\r\n\r\n<span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Justice Alexandre de Moraes argued that he was concerned about the children and families, but we are not dealing here with good-faith squatters. These lands have been demarcated since the 1990s. The people who are there are prospectors, criminals, trespassers. They are not families or squatting in good faith. There are no children there. What they are is criminals. In other words, the Supreme Court is still indebted to indigenous peoples with regard to the expulsion of trespassers who are illegally on these federal lands.<\/span>","post_title":"Interview: the impacts of the Supreme Court ruling on the protection of indigenous lands","post_excerpt":"Luiz Eloy Terena, legal advisor to APIB, explains the importance of the first lawsuit filed by an indigenous organization being accepted by the highest court in the country","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"interview-the-impacts-of-the-supreme-court-ruling-on-the-protection-of-indigenous-lands","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2021-04-01 14:59:45","post_modified_gmt":"2021-04-01 14:59:45","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/conectas.org\/?post_type=noticia&#038;p=22502","menu_order":1600,"post_type":"noticia","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},"noticia2":{"ID":22457,"post_author":"2","post_date":"2020-08-06 16:18:29","post_date_gmt":"2020-08-06 16:18:29","post_content":"<span style=\"color: #000000;\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">On Wednesday, August 5, a full session of the Supreme Court upheld an injunction granted by Justice Luis Roberto Barroso that requires the federal government to <\/span><b>adopt urgent measures to contain the spread of the pandemic in indigenous territories.<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">\u00a0<\/span><\/span>\r\n\r\n<span style=\"color: #000000;\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Drafted by <\/span><a href=\"http:\/\/apib.info\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\"><span style=\"color: #0000ff;\"><strong><span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\">APIB (Association of Indigenous Peoples of Brazil)<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/a><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> in conjunction with the political parties PSB, PCdoB, PSOL, PT, REDE and PDT, the <\/span><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"><a href=\"http:\/\/portal.stf.jus.br\/processos\/detalhe.asp?incidente=5952986\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\"><strong><span style=\"text-decoration: underline; color: #0000ff;\">A<\/span><\/strong><\/a><a href=\"http:\/\/portal.stf.jus.br\/processos\/detalhe.asp?incidente=5952986\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\"><span style=\"color: #0000ff;\"><strong><span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\">DPF (Allegation of Violation of a Fundamental Precept) Case No. 709<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/a><\/span><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> asks the Judiciary to order the government to adopt <\/span><b>measures to guarantee the protection of indigenous peoples<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> in the context of the serious epidemiological crisis. The requests include the removal of trespassers from the indigenous lands of the Yanomami, Karipuna, Uru-EuWau-Wau, Kayap\u00f3, Ararib\u00f3ia, Munduruku and Trincheira Bacaj\u00e1.<\/span><\/span>\r\n\r\n<span style=\"color: #000000;\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">In early July, Justice Luis Roberto Barroso accepted some of the requests to safeguard the indigenous peoples during the pandemic. In his injunction, Barroso determined the <\/span><b>creation of sanitation barriers around the isolated communities<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> in order to prevent the spread of the virus, the creation of a situation room for the management of actions to stop the pandemic reaching isolated or recently contacted indigenous peoples, with the participation of the communities, through APIB, the Office of the Prosecutor- General and the Federal Public Defender\u2019s Office, and the preparation and monitoring of a Plan to Combat Covid-19 for Brazilian Indigenous Peoples, with the participation of indigenous communities, among other measures.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/span>\r\n\r\n<span style=\"color: #000000;\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The justice also ordered that the services of the <\/span><b>Indigenous Health Subsystem be accessible to all indigenous villagers<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">, regardless of whether their territories have been officially recognized.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/span>\r\n\r\n<span style=\"color: #000000;\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">This was the decision that was <\/span><b>accepted by the full session of the Court<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> on Wednesday.\u00a0<\/span><\/span>\r\n\r\n<span style=\"font-weight: 400; color: #000000;\">The virtual judgment began on Monday, August 3, with the favorable vote of the rapporteur of the case, Justice Luis Roberto Barroso, accompanied by the statement of representatives of the petitioning institutions and amici curiae, and it was concluded on Wednesday, with the votes of the other justices.\u00a0<\/span>\r\n\r\n&nbsp;\r\n\r\n<span style=\"color: #000000;\"><b>Watch the full session below:<\/b><\/span>\r\n\r\n<iframe src=\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/embed\/eVjnJzNvpz0\" width=\"720\" height=\"480\" frameborder=\"0\" allowfullscreen=\"allowfullscreen\"><\/iframe>\r\n<span style=\"color: #000000;\"><b>What the case represents<\/b><\/span>\r\n\r\n<span style=\"color: #000000;\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The simple fact that APIB, an indigenous organization, was<\/span><b> recognized by the Supreme Court as legitimate to present this case<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> is, in itself, a historic and significant achievement.<\/span><\/span>\r\n\r\n<span style=\"color: #000000;\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Until now, in addition to political parties, the Supreme Court has only accepted requests to hear similar cases from <\/span><b>professional bodies, unions and other such organizations<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> that are considered \u201ctrade associations\u201d a term used in the Constitution to mean institutions that can file cases like these in the Supreme Court.<\/span><\/span>\r\n\r\n<span style=\"color: #000000;\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Barroso\u2019s decision could set an <\/span><b>important precedent <\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">for other organizations, such as those that represent women and LGBT rights advocates etc. to follow the same route.<\/span><\/span>\r\n\r\n&nbsp;\r\n\r\n<span style=\"color: #000000;\"><b>Impacts of the decision<\/b><\/span>\r\n\r\n<span style=\"color: #000000;\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Data from APIB reveal that Brazil has already registered <\/span><b>599 deaths and 20,809 confirmed cases of Covid-19 among indigenous peoples<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> throughout the country.\u00a0<\/span><\/span>\r\n\r\n<span style=\"color: #000000;\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">According to Funai (National Indian Foundation), there are <\/span><b>450 officially recognized indigenous territories<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> and another 236 are in the stage of demarcation, declaration or study.<\/span><\/span>\r\n\r\n<span style=\"color: #000000;\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">However, the petitioning organizations claim that both the Brazilian Constitution and Law No. 9,836\/99 that establishes the Indigenous Healthcare Subsystem guarantee the offer of health services to these populations and that they do <\/span><b>not make a distinction between demarcated and non-demarcated indigenous territories. <\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">\u00a0<\/span><\/span>\r\n\r\n<span style=\"color: #000000;\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">For the organizations, it is essential that the Court decision include public healthcare services <\/span><b>without making these distinctions.<\/b><\/span>\r\n\r\n<span style=\"font-weight: 400; color: #000000;\">\u201cThe goals of ADPF Case No. 709 will have little reach if the analysis of the merit by the Court does not confirm that the scope of the decision on the provision of healthcare extends to areas that have not yet been definitively demarcated,\u201d reads an excerpt of the request.\u00a0<\/span>\r\n\r\n&nbsp;\r\n\r\n<span style=\"color: #000000;\"><b>Removal of trespassers<\/b><\/span>\r\n\r\n<span style=\"color: #000000;\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The issue that caused the most disagreement in the Court was precisely one of the main points of the case filed by APIB and the political parties: the<\/span><b> expulsion of trespassers from indigenous lands.<\/b><\/span>\r\n\r\n<span style=\"color: #000000;\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The petition asks the federal government to take steps to remove trespassers from <\/span><b>seven indigenous lands<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">: Yanomami, Karipuma, Uru-Eu-Wau-Wau, Kayap\u00f3, Ararib\u00f3ia, Mundukuru and Trincheira Bacaj\u00e1. The organizations are also asking for a deadline be set for the removal plan to be implemented and the trespassers removed.<\/span><\/span>\r\n\r\n<span style=\"color: #000000;\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">This was the point <\/span><b>rejected by Barroso in his injunction<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> in early July, when he accepted the other requests.\u00a0<\/span><\/span>\r\n\r\n<span style=\"font-weight: 400; color: #000000;\">APIB had appealed this rejection, noting that \u201cthe risks to the health of indigenous peoples resulting from the presence and the criminal activities of trespassers are incomparably higher than an operation to remove these people. And these health risks possibly caused by removal operations can be minimized by the adoption of precautions, such as the prior testing and mandatory quarantine of the state agents involved in these operations.\u201d<\/span>\r\n\r\n<span style=\"color: #000000;\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">At Wednesday\u2019s session of the Court, the justices Alexandre de Moraes, Rosa Weber and Gilmar Mendes said that the <\/span><b>government should establish a removal plan<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">, but did not set a time frame.\u00a0<\/span><\/span>\r\n\r\n<span style=\"color: #000000;\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Justices Edson Fachin and Lewandowski, meanwhile, argued that the<\/span><b> Court should establish a deadline<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> for carrying out the actions to remove trespassers. However, they differed on the deadlines: Fachin proposed giving the government 60 days from the date of the approval of the removal plan, while Lewandowski recommended giving the government 120 days to present this plan.<\/span><\/span>\r\n\r\n&nbsp;","post_title":"Indigenous peoples in the pandemic: what the case in the Supreme Court represents","post_excerpt":"Association of Indigenous Peoples is asking for the federal government to take urgent steps to contain Covid-19 among indigenous populations","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"on-wednesday-august-5-a-full-session-of-the-supreme-court-upheld-an-injunction-granted-by-justice-luis-roberto-barroso-that-requires-the-federal-government-to-adopt-urgent-measures-to-contain-the-sp","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2021-04-01 15:01:21","post_modified_gmt":"2021-04-01 15:01:21","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/conectas.org\/?post_type=noticia&#038;p=22457","menu_order":1606,"post_type":"noticia","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},"noticia3":{"ID":23239,"post_author":"2","post_date":"2020-09-28 21:17:20","post_date_gmt":"2020-09-28 21:17:20","post_content":"<span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">At the UN, on Friday 25, leaders of the Yanomami people condemned the negligence of President Jair Bolsonaro\u2019s government in fighting Covid-19 in indigenous communities.<\/span>\r\n\r\n<span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">In a video statement shown at the 45th session of the United Nations Human Rights Council, Maur\u00edcio Yekuana, of the Hutukara Yanomami Association stated that remarks by President Jair Bolsonaro had been serving as an incentive for illegal goldmining and he asked the international community to help Brazil\u00b4s indigenous people.<\/span>\r\n\r\n<span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">\u201cThe government is making comments that encourage illegal goldmining on indigenous territory in Amaz\u00f4nia which is leading to increased threats towards us.\u201d Said Yekuana.<\/span>\r\n\r\n<span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Ministry of Health data shows there have been 709 cases of Covid-19 among around 27 thousand indigenous people. Of these, 162, had to be transferred to the Indigenous Health Centre, in Boa Vista and seven have died of the disease.<\/span>\r\n\r\n<span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">However, Apib (Articulation of the Indigenous Peoples of Brazil) is carrying out independent daily research, as the government\u00b4s official sample is skewed and does not include indigenous people living in urban settings. According to the organisation, the figures are much more alarming: up to September, there had been\u00a0<\/span><b>33,412 confirmed cases of infection among indigenous peoples<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">, with a total of 825 deaths and 158 peoples affected.\u00a0<\/span>\r\n\r\n<b>Illegal goldmining<\/b>\r\n\r\n<span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">A study carried out by the Socioenvironmental Institute (ISA) and the Federal University of Minas Gerais (UFMG) indicates that Yanomami Territory is the most vulnerable of the indigenous regions in Amaz\u00f4nia, to the novel coronavirus. The main reason for this is the intensity of illegal goldmining in the region which is responsible for spreading not only Covid-19, but also other diseases such as malaria.<\/span>\r\n\r\n<span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">According to the aforementioned researchers, 20 thousand illegal goldminers are working in the region. In July of this year, almost four months after the onset of the pandemic in Brazil, Federal Government presented a plan to tackle Covid in the indigenous populations. However, the plan was criticised for being generic and inadequate.<\/span>\r\n\r\n<span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">In June, the Forum for Yanomami and Ye\u00b4kwana Leaders launched a campaign \u201cOut with Goldmining, Out with Covid!\u201d condemning the presence of\u00a0<\/span><b>over 20 thousand goldminers on their land<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">, and calling for these people, who are the greatest contributors to the transmission of the novel coronavirus among the indigenous populations, to be removed \u2013 a bitter d\u00e9j\u00e0 vu of the incursions of the 1970s and 1980s, when\u00a0<\/span><b>13% of the Yanomami population died of diseases such as malaria and measles<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">.\u00a0<\/span>\r\n\r\n<span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The campaign, supported by Conectas and a coalition of organisations, includes a petition to the legislative authorities, Rodrigo Maia and Davi Alcolumbre, Eduardo Fortunato (president of IBAMA), Ministers Fernando Azevedo (Defence) and Andr\u00e9 Mendon\u00e7a (Justice) and vice-president General Hamilton Mour\u00e3o. As a means of putting pressure on the Brazilian government to remove illegal goldminers, Conectas, a member of the National Human Rights Council (CNDH), contributed to a request for a precautionary measure together with the Inter-American Human Rights Commission (IACHR).\u00a0<\/span>","post_title":"At the UN, indigenous leaders accuse the Federal Government of negligence in fighting Covid","post_excerpt":"In a statement at the Human Rights Council, a representative of the Yanomami people said that remarks made by the president were serving as an incentive for illegal goldmining","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"at-the-un-indigenous-leaders-accuse-the-federal-government-of-negligence-in-fighting-covid","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2021-04-01 14:11:46","post_modified_gmt":"2021-04-01 14:11:46","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/conectas.org\/?post_type=noticia&#038;p=23239","menu_order":1519,"post_type":"noticia","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}},"links_para_referencia":[{"titulo-referencia":"Oral support by J\u00falia Neiva","arquivo_referencia":false,"link_externo":"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=N3hTogXuXOE"},{"titulo-referencia":"Procedural follow-up in the Supreme Courte","arquivo_referencia":false,"link_externo":"http:\/\/portal.stf.jus.br\/processos\/detalhe.asp?incidente=5952986"},{"titulo-referencia":"Memorials","arquivo_referencia":{"ID":29693,"id":29693,"title":"PE\u20acA FINAL STF 31.07","filename":"PEEA-FINAL-STF-31.07.pdf","filesize":5931137,"url":"https:\/\/conectas.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/07\/PEEA-FINAL-STF-31.07.pdf","link":"https:\/\/conectas.org\/en\/litigiopt\/adpf-709-action-plan-for-indigenous-peoples\/peea-final-stf-31-07-2\/","alt":"","author":"26","description":"","caption":"","name":"peea-final-stf-31-07-2","status":"inherit","uploaded_to":31481,"date":"2021-04-01 00:06:38","modified":"2021-05-10 14:01:06","menu_order":0,"mime_type":"application\/pdf","type":"application","subtype":"pdf","icon":"https:\/\/conectas.org\/wp-includes\/images\/media\/document.png"},"link_externo":""},{"titulo-referencia":"Application for admission as amicus curiae","arquivo_referencia":{"ID":29695,"id":29695,"title":"Ingresso Amicus ADPF 709","filename":"Ingresso-Amicus-ADPF-709.pdf","filesize":241684,"url":"https:\/\/conectas.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/07\/Ingresso-Amicus-ADPF-709.pdf","link":"https:\/\/conectas.org\/en\/litigiopt\/adpf-709-action-plan-for-indigenous-peoples\/ingresso-amicus-adpf-709-2\/","alt":"","author":"26","description":"","caption":"","name":"ingresso-amicus-adpf-709-2","status":"inherit","uploaded_to":31481,"date":"2021-04-01 00:06:57","modified":"2021-05-10 14:01:06","menu_order":0,"mime_type":"application\/pdf","type":"application","subtype":"pdf","icon":"https:\/\/conectas.org\/wp-includes\/images\/media\/document.png"},"link_externo":""}]},"yoast":{"focuskw":"","title":"","metadesc":"","linkdex":"","metakeywords":"","meta-robots-noindex":"","meta-robots-nofollow":"","meta-robots-adv":"","canonical":"","redirect":"","opengraph-title":"","opengraph-description":"","opengraph-image":"","twitter-title":"","twitter-description":"","twitter-image":""},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/conectas.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/litigiopt\/31481","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/conectas.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/litigiopt"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/conectas.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/litigiopt"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/conectas.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/29691"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/conectas.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=31481"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"temaltigio","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/conectas.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/temaltigio?post=31481"},{"taxonomy":"categoria_litigio","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/conectas.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categoria_litigio?post=31481"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}