afford due process to challenge the merits of the expropriation order; and the exception allowed under Article 31.2.b of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure, i.e., on the grounds of an unwarranted delay in deciding the cases in the Brazilian courts. 51. The State, for its part, objects to the claim asserting the exceptions to the rule requiring exhaustion of domestic remedies. The State contends that the cases on this matter are still active in the domestic courts. The petitioners respond by alleging that there is no effective domestic remedy to challenge the Brazilian State’s public use declaration, and they underscore the Brazilian court’s delay in bringing the court cases underway to conclusion. 52. Decree-Law No. 3.365/41 – which regulates expropriation based on public use or interest in Brazil- provides that in the expropriation process the courts do not have jurisdiction to determine whether or not a public interest or use exists.[18] 18 The inference of this decree is that the courts are not permitted to assess the merits of a public use or interest decision. 53. The Commission considers that although legal actions have been attempted, the decision to expropriate for public use will not be reversed inasmuch as a specific law on the subject exists within the Brazilian legal system. 54. Further, in order for the Commission to determine whether the remedies under domestic law have been exhausted, it has to consider the situation as of the time the decision on admissibility is taken. Therefore, although the petitioners have filed suits since the time the case with the Commission was opened, the current standing of the legal proceedings attempted has to be examined. 55. In 1999, the Federal Public Prosecutor brought a public civil action, registered as No. 1999.37.00.007382-0, against the Union, the IBAMA (Brazilian Institute for the Environment and Renewable Natural Resources), and INFRAERO (the Brazilian Airport Infrastructure Company). It alleged irregularities in the environmental impact study/environmental impact report having to do with the activities of the “Alcântara Launch Center” (CLA). The Commission observes that even if this action is satisfactory to the authors, the decision would not alter the harm alleged by the petitioners, since the subject of this litigation does not directly concern the relocation status of the communities in the area of Alcântara. Since 1980, [19] 19 the state of Maranhão has brought a number of expropriation actions, which are being heard in Federal court. The Commission notes that those legal actions cannot examine the public use or public interest issue and are strictly confined to the issue of the price to be paid for the expropriation.[20] 20 56. In 2003, the Federal Public Prosecutor’s Office brought Civil Public Action No. 2003.8868-2 against the Union and the “Palmares Cultural Foundation”. The purpose of the action is to force this Foundation to proceed with the appraisal of the remaining quilombo communities; failing that, to suspend any further relocation of those communities. The IACHR observes that the eventual recognition of the remaining quilombo communities legal title to their land will not prevent the Union from expropriating that land claiming public use or interest. Should that happen, the general law on the subject stipulates that the judicial branch is not allowed to determine whether the declaration is or is not for public use or interest.[21] 21 In 2003, Class Action No. 2003.7826-3 was filed by the “Associação das Comunidades Negras Rurais Quilombolas do Maranhão” – 18 Art. 9. In an expropriation case, the Judicial Branch is not permitted to determine whether the expropriation is or is not for public use or interest. 19 State Decree Nº 7.820/80. 20 Decree No. 3.365/41, art. 20. 21 Decree No. 3.365/41. 10