49. At that time, the vast majority of the Xucuru indigenous lands were occupied by nonindigenous, as verified by the IACHR 39. Article 4 of Decree No. 22 (then in force) established that, "during the demarcation process, the federal organ shall remove from the lands non-indigenous occupants, and for that purpose may sign an agreement with the federal organ for the assistance to indigenous peoples" 40. Notwithstanding the foregoing, there is no information on file to indicate that between 1992 and 1995 the State proceeded to start consolidating the Xucuru indigenous territory, and remove any non-indigenous occupying the territory during that period. Indeed, according to information provided by the parties, there was no progress in the administrative process of demarcation between 1992 and 1995. 50. In 1995, the extension of the Xucuru territory was rectified to an area corresponding to 27.055.0583 hectares, and the physical demarcation of territory took place. Subsequently, on January 8, 1996, the President of the Republic issued Decree No. 1775, which introduced significant changes in the administrative process of demarcation of indigenous lands. As described above, Decree No. 1,775 recognized for the first time to third parties interested in the territory identified and delimited, the right to challenge the demarcation process and litigate their property rights in the area, or to request compensation 41. Decree No. 1775 recognized such power to the states and municipalities where the area subject to demarcation is located on and to other stakeholders, "since the start of the demarcation process" (Article 2, paragraph 8) 42. Also, for cases where the demarcation process was pending, as the Xukuru indigenous territory, Article 9 of Decree No. 1775 stipulated that "if the decree of approval had not yet been the subject of property registration or at the Union’s Secretariat for Federal Heritage, interested parties may intervene in the same terms of Article 2, paragraph 8, within ninety days from the date of publication of this decree." 43 So, as of January 8, 1996, the administrative process of demarcation of the Xucuru indigenous territory came to be regulated by Decree No. 1,775, whose main contents were described supra. 51. According to information provided by the parties, after the promulgation of Decree No. 1,775, people interested in the Xucuru territory - including legal entities like the Pesqueira Mayoralty- filed 272 or 269 challenges (contestacões) against the demarcation process in question. Under the coinciding description of both parties, on July 10, 1996 the Minister of Justice declared all those challenges inadmissible through it’s Despacho No. 32. Subsequently, third parties interested in the Xucuru territory filed a motion for an injunction (mandado de segurança No. 4802-DF) to the High Court of Justice ("STJ")44. Both sides agreed that on May 28, 1997 the STJ decided the motion in favor of the third parties, giving them a new deadline for administrative challenges. As described by both parties, the new challenges were all rejected by the Minister of Justice, which reaffirmed the need to proceed with the demarcation in terms of the Portaria from the Minister of Justice of the year 1992. 52. The Commission recalls that if the decision of the Minister of Justice confirms the demarcation as performed, Article 4 of Decree No. 1775 establishes that "if the presence of non-indigenous settlers in the area under demarcation is verified, the federal organ for the land will proceed to remove them as a matter of priority, in accordance with the study prepared by the technical group, and observing the applicable law."45 That is, both Decree No. 1,775 and Decree No. 22, mandate the removal of non-indigenous from the indigenous territory under demarcation. Nevertheless, there is no information on the file to indicate that between 1997 and 2001 the State started the consolidation of the Xucuru indigenous territory and the removal of the non-indigenous occupants thereof. 53. Indeed, the State has informed the IACHR that between 2001 and 2005, it paid compensation to 296 non-indigenous occupants and proceeded to remove them from the Xucuru indigenous territory. IACHR, REPORT ON THE SITUATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN BRAZIL. OEA/Ser.L/V/II.97 Doc. 29 rev. 1, 29 September 1997, Chapter VI “Human Rights of the Indigenous Peoples in Brazil”, par. 45. (the IACHR indicated that almost 90% of the Xucuru indigenous land was occupied by non-indigenous people). 40 Annex 1. Relevant legislation. Decree n. 22, Article 4. 41 The Commission notes that the above Decree n. 94.945 OF 1987 and n. 22 of 1991 did not contain similar provisions. 42 Annex 1. Relevant legislation. Decree n. 1.775, Article 2, paragraph 8. 43 Annex 1. Relevant legislation. Decree n. 1.775, Article 9. 44 The Commission does not have copies of Mandado de Segurança No. 4802-DF file. 45 Annex 1. Relevant legislation. Decree n. 1.775, article 4. 39 12