10. Amicus brief. The Court received eight amicus briefs from: (1) the Inter-American Human Rights Clinic of the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro and the Fundamental Rights and Transparency Clinic of the Federal University of Juiz de Fora; 6 (2) the Amazon Human Rights Clinic of the Federal University of Pará and the Public Defender’s Office of the State of Pará; 7 (3) the Federal Council of the Order of Attorneys of Brazil and the Research Center on Human Rights Systems at the Federal University of Paraná; 8 (4) the Order of Attorneys of Brazil, Minas Gerais Section; 9 (5) the Union of Attorneys of the State of Minas Gerais (SINAD MG); 10 (6) the Human Rights and Environmental Law Clinic of the University of the State of Amazonas; 11 (7) the “Gabriel Pimenta” Brazilian Association of People’s Attorneys; 12 and (8) the Human Rights Clinic of the Federal University of Bahía. 13 International Law, and (c) for the State: Antônio Francisco Da Costa e Silva Neto, Ambassador of Brazil in Costa Rica and Chief of delegation; João Lucas Quental Novaes de Almeida, Director of the Department of Human Rights and Citizenship of the MFA; José Armando Zema de Resende, Minister of the Embassy of Brazil in San José; Bruna Vieira de Paula, Chief of the Division of Human Rights of the MFA; Débora Antônia Lobato Cândido, Advisor of the Division of Human Rights of the MFA; Lucas dos Santos Furquim Ribeiro, Registrar of the Embassy of Brazil in San José; Viviane Ruffeil Teixeira Pereira, Attorney of the State of Pará; Tonny Teixeira de Lima and Taiz Marrão Batista da Costa, Public Attorneys; Milton Nunes Toledo Junior, Chief of the Special Office of International Affairs of the Ministry of Women, Family and Human Rights (MMFDH); Tatiana Leite Lopes Romani, Advisor of the Special Office of International Affairs of the MMFDH; Bruna Nowak, Coordinator of International Human Rights Disputes in the Special Office of International Affairs of the MMFDH; Aline Albuquerque Sant’ Anna de Oliveira, Coordinator of International Affairs of the Legal Office of the MMFDH, and João Pedro Ribeiro Sampaio de Arruda, Director of the Office of Agrarian Conflict Resolution of the National Institute of Agrarian Reform (INCRA). 6 The brief was signed by Siddharta Legale, Thainá Mamede, Bruno Stigert, Carolina Cyrillo, Danilo Sardinha, Giovanna Barbastefano, Isadora Merli, Vanessa Guimarães dos Santos, Thiago Castro, Júlia Oliveira Pessôa, Maria Eduarda Gualberto Vieira, Letícia Gabriella Costa Corrêa, Gabriel Angelo Costa Corrêa, Gabrielley Custodia Alves Mascarenhas, Iris Campos Nogueira, Rebecca Ferreira Arbex, Nina Morena Teixeira Pacheco, and Yuri Ernandes Rodrigues de Carvalho. The brief describes theoretical perspectives on the American Convention as an “Inter-American Constitution” and the Inter-American Court as a “Transnational Constitutional Court,” as well as on “inter-American trade union freedom.” It also argues for practical applications concerning access to justice, the Human Rights Defenders Protection Program, the “social function of property and the need for the Court to broaden the debate about Article 21 of the Convention,” and a duty to grant reparations to the alleged victims. 7 The brief was signed by Andreia Macedo Barreto, Anna Izabel e Silva Santos, Bia Albuquerque Tiradentes, Carlos Eduardo Barros da Silva, Edgar Moreira Alamar, Guilherme Israel Kochi Silva, Juliana Andrea Oliveira, Kassandra Campos Pinto Lopes Gomes, Vladimir Augusto de Carvalho Lobo e Avelino Koenig, Cristina Figueiredo Terezo Ribeiro, Amanda Pereira Reis, Daniela Bastos da Silva, and Sarah Morhy Pereira. The brief details alleged land conflicts in the State of Pará and allegedly harmful actions taken in that state, as well as the alleged vulnerability of human rights defenders and the “possibility” of the Inter-American Court “making progress” on safeguarding rights in indigenous lands. The brief was signed by José Alberto Ribeiro Simonetti Cabral, Sílvia Virgínia Silva de Souza, Melina Girardi Fachin, Cristina Paiva, José Maria Vieira, Álvaro Quintão, Anderson Ferreira, and Caupolican Padilha Junior. The brief describes the alleged legal situation of the human rights defenders and the alleged state obligations and related rights, in accordance with certain standards, as well as standard provisional measures and measures of reparation. 8 9 The brief was signed by Sérgio Rodrigues Leonardo, William dos Santos, and Cristina Paiva Matos Fontes. The brief primarily describes the recommended measures of reparation. 10 The brief was signed by Roberto Williams Moysés Auad and Julia Pereira Reis. The brief makes certain arguments of law and fact in support of the adoption of measures that “enable democratic progress in Brazil.” 11 The brief was signed by Sílvia Maria da Silveira Loureiro, Jamilly Izabela de Brito Silva, Lucas Schneider Veríssimo de Aquino, João Lucas Bastos de Lima Sousa, Yasmin de Almeida Bayma, Izabelly Sabriny Oliveira Nascimento, Gabriel Henrique Pinheiro Andion, Claudevan Barros Bentes Filho, Valena Jacob Chaves Mesquita, Girolamo D. Treccani, Luana Nunes Bandeira Soares, Danielle Anne Pamplona, Júlia Coimbra Braga, and Eduardo Pitrez de Aguiar Correa. The brief primarily provides an analysis of the context of the case and makes legal arguments against the expiration of the statute of limitations for the alleged “crime” committed against Gabriel Sales Pimenta. It also details the measures of reparation they consider appropriate. 12 The brief was signed by Henrique Júdice Magalhães. The brief makes observations concerning the ratio temporis jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court and the context of the case, as well as suggested measures of reparation. 13 The brief was signed by Marina Muniz Pinto de Carvalho Matos, Tatiana Emília Dias Gomes, Emmanuelle Diana Santos Neves, Carlos Eduardo Soares de Freitas, Caio Cézar Pereira dos Reis, Christian Lopes Oliveira Alves, Cristiane de Almeida Santa Rosa, Rebeca Ananias Pinto, Rebeca das Neves dos Santos, and Udma Uldiery Oliveira Silva. The brief describes the context of the case, the deaths of human rights defenders in Brazil (and the alleged systematic nature of those deaths), the Brazilian Human Rights Defenders Protection Program, and suggested guarantees of non-repetition. 6