the subject of which was the suspension of public hearings by the “Instituto Brasileiro do Meio Ambiente e dos Recursos Naturais Renováveis” (IBAMA - Brazilian Institute for the Environment and Renewable Natural Resources) into the CLA’s permit, specifically with regard to the project’s environmental impact assessment; (b) a Public Civil Action prosecuted by the Federal Public Prosecutor [13] 13 against the Union and the “Palmares Cultural Foundation” to order the Foundation to move forward with the appraisal of the remaining quilombo communities or, failing that, to suspend any further activity to relocate those communities; (c) a class action suit [14] 14 brought by the Associação das Comunidades Negras Rurais Quilombolas do Maranhão – ACONERUQ (Association of Rural Afro-Brazilian Quilombo Communities of Maranhão) against the Union and the state of Maranhão, asking the court to declare the communities of “Só-Assim” and “Itamatatiua” as remaining quilombo communities and to exclude those communities from the area in which the CLA is being established; (d) various expropriation actions brought by the Union and the state of Maranhão[15] 15 against the parties whose land is being expropriated, referred to as property owners or settlers, still pending in the federal and state courts. 12 37. The State adds that these suits are in progress and a number of judicial remedies are still available should the petitioners be dissatisfied with the decisions handed down in those cases.[16]16 The State reasons that the very fact that new legal suits were filed about the alleged violations, even after the petition was lodged with the IACHR, shows that the petitioners made no attempt to satisfy the requirement of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies and instead rushed to bring their allegations to the Commission. 38. The State alleges that the time period required under Article 32.1 of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure has not been fulfilled. It asserts that the Brazilian court’s final rulings on the legal suits being heard have not been delivered; hence, the presumption must be that the remedies under domestic law have not been exhausted. The Brazilian State therefore rejects the notion of a continuing violation of the human rights of the quilombo communities in the Alcântara region, since the civil and administrative suits are still active, and competent state bodies are taking the appropriate measures. 39. The State manifested the adoption of diverse measures of political, legislative and administrative nature directed to the quilombo remnants communities, the ones that are described in the answer presented on August 2005. It is affirmed that on November 20th 2003, the Presidential Decree N° 4.887 which establishes the rules of procedure for identification, recognition, delimitation, demarcation and title emission of the lands occupied by the referred communities, was dictated. This is the result of the work of the Inter Ministerial Work Group (GEI), coordinated by the Civil House of the Presidency of the Republic and the Special Secretariat of Politics of Racial Equality Promotion of the Presidency of the Republic (SEPPIR/PR), with the participation of representatives of the civil society and 12 Being heard in Federal Court: No. 1999.37.00.007382-0. The Federal Court’s decision is pending. 13 Being heard in Federal Court: No. 2003.8868-2. The ruling has been pending since September 25, 2003, in the Fifth Federal District Court of the state of Maranhão. 14 Case in the Federal Courts: No. 2003.7826-3. 15 There are no figures in the documents presented by the two sides as to the number of expropriation cases. 16 Under Articles 513 to 521 of the Civil Procedure Code, an appeal filed with the Federal Regional Court; then, under Articles 530 to 534 of the Civil Procedure Code, embargos de divergência, which is an appeal allowed when the decision of the appellate tribunal reverses the ruling on the merits and the appellate tribunal’s decision is not unanimous; agravo is an appeal to a higher court when the appellate tribunal decision on review denies the embargos de divergência; then a special appeal to the Superior Tribunal of Justice, and then an extraordinary appeal to the Federal Supreme Tribunal when the appellate tribunal decision is considered unsatisfactory. 7