climate of tension and insecurity. The petitioners hold that every time the process moved forward significantly --or, paradoxically, when it suffered a reverse-- tension flamed up between the Xucuru indigenous people and the non-indigenous present on the indigenous lands. The petitioners allege that this situation resulted in the killing of key indigenous leaders: José Everaldo Rodrigues Bispo, son of the people’s spiritual leader, on September 4, 1992; Geraldo Rolim, a FUNAI agent and active defender of the indigenous, on May 14, 1995; and finally the chief of the group, Cacique Xicão, on May 21, 1998. Xicão’s successor, Cacique Marquinhos, was later threatened, which led the IACHR to grant protective measures on October 29, 2002 (supra para. 7). In the same context, but more recently, the petitioners allege that after an assassination attempt against Cacique Marquinhos in 2003, the Xucuru indigenous people damaged the property of the alleged perpetrators of the attempt. The petitioners say that as a result, Cacique Marquinhos, as leader of the people, was convicted in federal court and sentenced to 10 years and four months in prison, on May 22, 2009. 16. According to the petitioners, the presidential decree that ratified the demarcation of Xucuru indigenous land was not issued until April 30, 2001, i.e., 12 years after the start of the demarcation process. Despite that ratification, on October 16, 2002, the date the petition was presented, the petitioners report that the removal of the non-indigenous had still not taken place and they continued to occupy about 70% of the Xucuru land. The petitioners emphasize that the official recording of Xucuru indigenous land has not taken place either, because the property registry official of the city of Pesqueira refused to record the land title and furthermore filed objection motion (Ação de suscitação de dúvidas) No. 2002.83.00.012334-9 with the local judge, challenging the validity of the demarcation process. 17. In their communication of October 27, 2008, the petitioners noted that the objection motion had been transferred to federal court, because of jurisdiction issues, and was later rejected; and that the court ordered the registration of the Xucuru indigenous lands. However, the petitioners submit that non-indigenous are still on Xucuru territory, and that legal actions filed by non-indigenous against the demarcation process are still pending. The first of them is a motion to regain possession (Ação de reintegração de posse) No. 92.0002697-4 filed by a non-indigenous occupant, which was decided in his favor (and against the indigenous possession) in the lower and upper federal courts, and ratified by the STJ; a special appeal to the Supreme Federal Tribunal (“STF”) is pending. The second action (a court suit to annul the administrative demarcation process No. 2002.83.00.019349-2) seeks to annul the 6