15. Regarding the rights violated in this case, first the petitioners argue that Brazil has violated the right to collective property of the Xucuru indigenous people and its members, enshrined in Articles 21.1 of the American Convention and XXIII of the American Declaration. In this regard, they argue that the Xucuru indigenous people do not just want the registration of their territory, but has the right to its use and enjoyment through the "undisturbed possession" of their land to ensure the perpetuation of their culture and respect for their special relationship with their lands, territories and resources. 16. With regard to the alleged violation of the right to a fair trial and judicial protection established in Articles 8.1 and 25.1 of the American Convention and XVIII of the American Declaration, the petitioners alleged the unwarranted delay by state officials to finalize the demarcation process of the Xukuru indigenous territory, including the formal registration of the territory and the effective removal of nonindigenous settlers. According to the petitioners, the delay of 16 years (1989-2005) to achieve the titling of the Xucuru territory, as well as the more than 21 years that have elapsed to achieve effective removal of nonindigenous from the area constitute per se a violation of the principle of a reasonable time period and an evidence of ineffectiveness and denial of justice. 17. Furthermore, in accordance with the obligation enshrined in Article 2 of the American Convention, the petitioners argue that Brazil should adopt legal instruments to allow that, once a specific territory is recognized as indigenous by an act of the executive branch, the Federal Government automatically proceeds to its possession for the benefit of the respective indigenous people, in order to avoid demarcation processes extending indefinitely, as it allegedly happened in this case. 18. In the merits stage the petitioners have also alleged the violation of the rights to life and personal integrity established in Articles 4.1 and 5.1 of the Convention, resulting from the lack of compliance with the precautionary measures granted in favor of Cacique Marquinhos and Zenilda Maria de Araújo. They specifically mentioned the attempted assassination suffered by Cacique Marquinhos on February 2003. Also at the merits stage the petitioners submitted arguments on alleged violations relating to the context of tension and insecurity that has characterized the demarcation process, as well as the difficulties in the implementation of the precautionary measures. They argued generally that the number of deaths that occurred during the demarcation process have not been properly investigated, nor has the attempted murder suffered by the Cacique Marquinhos on 7 February 2003 been duly investigated. This, according to the petitioners, has resulted in distrust of the Xucuru indigenous people towards the State authorities, particularly the Federal Police and the Federal Public Ministry (hereinafter "MPF"). Also, with respect to the MPF, in the merits stage the petitioners stressed that the "new strategy" by non-indigenous to obstruct the demarcation is the "criminalization of indigenous leaders", which is supported by that body, and they indicate that this is It reflected in "countless criminal actions" promoted by the MPF against the Xucuru indigenous people. They cited as an example the criminal action brought against Cacique Marquinhos for events that occurred after the assassination attempt against him when the Xucuru indigenous people destroyed lands and property in the city of Pesqueira. B. State 19. The State argues that the administrative process of demarcation of the Xucuru indigenous territory has formally concluded after due registration of the indigenous land in November 2005 as property of the Federal Union. The State adds that the only thing that has not yet been accomplished is the full removal of non-indigenous occupants after the payment of compensation in accordance with relevant legislation. Thus, the State alleges that it has duly recognized the right of the Xucuru indigenous people and its members to their ancestral territory. 20. Specifically, the State contends that the administrative process of demarcation of the Xucuru indigenous territory began in 1989, through identification and demarcation of the territory conducted by the Technical Group of FUNAI created by Decree (Portaria) No. 218 /FUNAI/89. According to the State, the identification and demarcation report was approved by the President of FUNAI in 1992 and shortly after the Minister of Justice declared the possession by the alleged victims of the Xucuru indigenous territory, through 4