17. Nevertheless, at the time of the mission, gaps in the protection of the right to food remained. The Special Rapporteur notes that the protection of the right to food would be further strengthened by the establishment of an independent national institution for the promotion and protection of human rights, in accordance with the Paris Principles, as recommended by the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights,[11] and Brazil has committed itself, under the universal periodic review process, to setting up such an institution.[12] The Council for the Defence of the Rights of the Person, which is placed under the authority of the Special Secretariat for Human Rights, is not an independent institution ensuring the protection of the right to food, and its special commission for monitoring violations of the right to food, set up in 2003, has recently discontinued its monitoring activity. 18. The Special Rapporteur was impressed by the role played by the Federal Public Ministry in protecting collective interests and safeguarding the basic rights of the citizen, and he welcomes the adoption by the Federal Public Ministry of a set of recommendations to strengthen the protection of the right to food. According to information received during the mission, the Public Ministry of the state of Alagoas — in a first case for Brazil — successfully obtained a judicial injunction to guarantee the communities of the Orla Lagunar area of Maceió their fundamental rights to food, education, health and housing. The Special Rapporteur considers this proactive use of the constitutional guarantees to ensure the realization of the right to food exemplary and calls upon the local government to take all measures required to comply with the recommendations of the judiciary. However, the Special Rapporteur notes that the capacity of the Federal Public Ministry remains — in certain regards — insufficient to ensure such actions are taken on a systematic basis. 2. Measures preventing access to productive resources 19. Indigenous, Quilombola and other traditional communities depend on the Government of Brazil to fulfil its constitutionally mandated obligation to demarcate their ancestral lands, and provide title and protection to this communal property. In the case of indigenous peoples, the Federal Constitution of 1988 required — under article 67 of the Transitional Constitutional Provisions Act — that the Government conclude all demarcations by late 1993; however, this constitutional requirement has not been fulfilled. Considerable difficulties persist in the territorial demarcation of all traditional communities. Some of these difficulties are linked to the insecurities regarding titling of lands, particularly in the Amazonian region, where land registration has not been completed, leading to competing claims of ownership. 20. According to information received from indigenous community representatives, the overall process of demarcations has virtually come to a standstill in recent years. These difficulties in demarcation procedures are being compounded by the criteria set by the Supreme Court in its Raposa Serra do Sol ruling. Meanwhile, private ownership claims over land and, more recently, settlements of INCRA are increasing pressure on these traditional communities and displacing them, often by State-sanctioned use of force. Large landowners have systematically relied on courts to expel indigenous peoples from their lands and to attempt to nullify the different administrative acts that lead up to the demarcation, thereby drawing out the procedure and leaving displaced communities exposed to egregious nutritional and sanitary conditions. A large number of bills have been filed in Congress, sponsored by large landowners, tending towards limiting the rights of indigenous people to their land or countering measures adopted by Government to ensure progress in demarcation. This paralysis of the land demarcation process for indigenous communities is of particular concern because the lands claimed by the traditional communities are, in the meantime, not protected against grilagem, i.e., the fraudulent appropriation of public lands by private persons, which is dealt with later in this report. 21. The Special Rapporteur understands the difficulties associated with the clarification of land registration and titling in the vast expanses of the Amazon region, as well as the difficulties involved in the demarcation procedures. Nevertheless, he urges the Government to adopt the measures necessary to ensure that the constitutionally mandated demarcations be accelerated, procedures and standards used in the process be clarified and streamlined and that, pending final determinations and assignment of lands, traditional communities be supported and have their right to food ensured either by a minimum level of access to productive resources or direct provision of culturally appropriate food aid. 22. Large-scale infrastructure projects that deprive communities of access to land also create a high risk of violations of the right to food. As Brazil increases investment in transport, energy and urban infrastructures it also exposes groups to displacement and adjustment vulnerability. The Brazilian Growth Acceleration Programme is expected to invest R$ 509 billion from 2007 to 2010, over half of which will be in the energy sector. Large projects such as dams, transportation and energy distribution networks are known to have a disproportionate impact on populations that are worst-off, aggravating their already precarious livelihoods.[13] The increased number of projects and the tight time frame set for their conclusion raises the risk that expediency will trump the need to properly assess environmental, social and human rights impacts and involve local communities in effective consultations. For instance, whatever the merits of the transposition of the São Francisco river, indigenous communities and other ribeirinhos (traditional riverside communities) should be meaningfully consulted and legal procedures — such as previous congressional authorization for the exploitation of natural resources in indigenous lands — fully respected. 3. Excessive use of force and criminalization of social movements 23. The Special Rapporteur notes with concern that politically tense situations — particularly those involving disputes over land and the implementation of large infrastructure projects — can still result in violent repression by State security forces, in a manner that is inconsistent with the need to respond with due restraint and in a proportional manner. 24. In this context, the Special Rapporteur has taken note of the recent final report of the Special Commission of the Council for the Defence of the Rights of the Person on the criminalization of social movements.[14] This report, focusing on the situation in the state of Rio Grande do Sul, reached the conclusion that “there is evidence of criminalization of the social movements in both rural and urban contexts by local authorities … this process of intimidation and criminalization [can be said to have] become a State policy, executed by the three branches of Government”. Further evidence of this process and the excessive use of State power to curtail the freedoms of social movements can be found in the two recent judgements of the Inter-American Court on Human Rights, one of which dealt with illegal wiretapping against organizations of the landless peasant movements, and the other with the impunity regarding