A/HRC/33/42/Add.1 development and maintain and develop their autonomous ways of life, and their right to cultural and physical survival as peoples.13 67. The Special Rapporteur is particularly concerned about the potential impact on indigenous peoples of the Tapajós dam complex. Impacts similar to those in the Belo Monte project appear inevitable unless there is full compliance with human rights standards from the planning stages through to project design and operation. 68. The Special Rapporteur welcomes the Government’s recognition of the impacts on Sawré Muybu indigenous lands caused by the São Luiz do Tapajós dam and the suspension of the licensing process by the Brazilian Institute of Environment and Renewable Natural Resources in the light of the project’s incompatibility with indigenous peoples’ constitutionally recognized rights. She is, however, concerned by reports that the land demarcation process may face political obstacles owing to its implications for the licensing processes. Completion of the land demarcation process is essential for the Munduruku and would serve as a first significant step to guaranteeing their human rights and those of other affected peoples. D. Land demarcation 69. A common theme in discussions with members of the executive was the perception of being hamstrung by the judiciary and the legislature when attempting to protect indigenous peoples’ rights and demarcate indigenous lands. Although impediments undoubtedly exist, the Special Rapporteur does not believes that they constitute an acceptable excuse for such lengthy delays in the land demarcation processes and the associated violations of rights leading to violence against indigenous communities. A serious concern is the frequent issuance of eviction orders when indigenous peoples reclaim and occupy lands that they are entitled to under the 1988 Constitution, but which the State has failed to demarcate in the last 28 years. While not necessarily binding in other cases, 14 the highly controversial and strongly contested Supreme Court interpretation of the 1988 Constitution in the Raposa-Serra do Sol ruling — which introduced the temporal framework requiring indigenous peoples to have been in possession of their lands or to have had claims in process when the Constitution was enacted, with no consideration given to how or why they were removed from their lands — imposes constraints on indigenous peoples’ rights to possess and control their lands and natural resources and hinders land demarcation. Lower courts as well as the Superior and Supreme Courts15 are applying the decision in ways that are completely at odds with the indigenous land rights provisions of the Constitution. In so doing, the State is forcing indigenous peoples off their own lands and depriving them of the enjoyment of their basic rights as well as fueling violence against them. 70. The failure of the State to protect indigenous peoples’ lands from illegal activities, in particular mining and logging, is a matter of grave concern. Even where indigenous peoples have demarcated territories, such as in the Amazon region, they lack effective control over their resources owing to increasing invasions associated with illegal activities, as in Cachoeira Seca, Apyterewa, Manoki, Yanomami and Ka’apor indigenous lands. 13 14 15 See Saramaka People v. Suriname, Judgment of 28 November 2007, Inter-American Court of Human Rights; and A/HRC/24/41, paras. 26-30. As affirmed by the Supreme Court ruling of May 2016 concerning Yvy Katu in Mato Grosso do Sul. See the rulings concerning Guyraroká and Limão Verde in Mato Grosso do Sul, and Porquinhos in Maranhão. 15