Drug trafficking : suspended sentence (“sursis”) and replacement of punishment for a restrictive sentence. The First Group rejected the Habeas Corpus in which the condemned sentenced to 1 year and 8 months of imprisonment in a closed system and 166 daily fines for the crime of trafficking in narcotics 11.343/2006 Law, art. 33), required the cancellation of the sentence Judicial decision on such terms as granted by the State Court of Justice. Then, ordered the Judge from his own conviction, by official letter, to consider the possibility of replacing the private penalty for a restrictive one, provided they meet the objective and subjective requirements of the Law. Homo-affective relationships and Family Entity – On merit, prevailed the vote given by the Judge-Rapporteur , interpreting the matter according to the Constitution , article 1723 of the Civil Code, excluding any meaning that prevents the recognition(or “witnessing”) of a stable, public and lasting union between people of the same sex as a family unit, being such union understood as a synonym for perfect family. He asserted that this recognition should be done in the same way and with the same consequences of a stable hetero-affective union. It was stressed that family would be, by nature or in terms of facts, vocationally loving, parental and protective of their members, constituting the ideal space for long lasting, affectionate, sympathetic or spiritualized private human relationship, which accredit the family as the basis of the society (Federal Constitution, article 226). He concluded that the solution presented would give concreteness to the principles of human dignity, equality, freedom, protection of minorities and non-discrimination. Law 9.784/99 and Demarcation of Indian lands – The First Group deprived an ordinary appeal of an injunction brought by the Supreme Court that had considered legal the administrative procedure of demarcation of lands which belonged to the Guarani Nandéva Indian Group. In rejecting the first claim, the First Group alluded to the Jurisprudence of the Supreme Court which had decided peacefully in the sense that the period of 5 years to complete demarcation of Indian lands is not preclusive and the rule in art. 67 ADCT is merely programmatic, just to inform the governing body to undertake the demarcation within a reasonable time. With regard to the subsidiary application of the Law 9.784/99, the first Group asserted that the Indian Statute (Law 6.001/73) would be specific legislation to regulate the mentioned administrative procedure, as the applicant will be present in the administrative proceedings and will submit its reasons duly refuted by FUNAI. STF Newsletter – Nº 625 – Brasília, 2 to 6 May , 2011 The homo affective union is now a law. Jois us. Raise this flag.