Ministry of Justice; d) ratification by presidential decree; and e) registration of the indigenous land. The process also provides that if non-indigenous are on the indigenous land after the decision by the Ministry of Justice, they will be removed expeditiously. 13. In the case of the Xucuru indigenous people’s lands, the petitioners indicate that the administrative demarcation process began in 1989, after pressure from the people led by their chief at the time, Cacique Xicão. According to the petitioners, in the identification and drawing of boundaries stage the technical group of the National Indigenous Foundation (“FUNAI”) issued an identification report on September 6, 1989, that said the Xucurus had the right to 26,980 hectares. The next step was completed on May 29, 1992, with the publication of Ministerial Decision no. 259 of the Ministry of Justice. At that time the procedure was regulated by Decree no. 22/91, and according to the petitioners, a majority (about 70%) of the Xucuru indigenous land was occupied by non-indigenous. However, the petitioners submit that the non-indigenous were not removed, contrary to the rules then in force. The petitioners note there was no progress in the demarcation between 1992 and1995, because of various administrative measures. They further state that the process was even backsliding, and that FUNAI repeated the identification and drawing of boundaries of the Xucuru indigenous land, which was finished in 1995 with identification of an area of 27,055.0583 hectares. 14. As reported, the executive branch issued a new decree (no. 1.775) on January 8, 1996, which introduced major changes in the process of demarcation of indigenous lands. This resulted in third parties challenging the report on identification and drawing of boundaries. The petitioners say non-indigenous persons interested in the land presented 272 challenges (contestações), all of which were thrown out by the Ministry of Justice in the administrative ruling of July 10, 1996. Subsequently, the non-indigenous filed a motion for an injunction (“mandado de segurança”) in the Supreme Court (“STJ”). According to the petitioners, the STJ ruled in favor of the non-indigenous, which opened the way for new administrative challenges. Those challenges, according to the petitioners, were all rejected by the Ministry of Justice, which reaffirmed the need to complete the demarcation as called for in the 1992 ministerial decision (supra para. 13). However, the petitioners submit that once again there was no removal of the non-indigenous from the Xucuru indigenous land. 15. Throughout this process, according to the petitioners, the continuing presence of non-indigenous on Xucuru lands gave rise to a 5