|Having reached the 21st century, Latin American indigenous peoples continue to be threatened, harassed, and looted. Assimilationism, genocides, and ethnocides aimed to turn indigenous peoples into slaves. Whether from a culture foreign to their ancestry, or further ahead, from the shackles of capital. As the greatest of the taskmasters, it is considered the figure of the Modern State, Eurocentric, standardizing, univocal, and unison. Averse to difference, an institutional, individualistic, materialistic, timeless, and insatiable enemy. On the other hand, resistance mechanisms do not seem to give way. Along with such, Mother Earth signals the need for change. A form of existence different from the one that was imposed, from the one which confuses citizenship with consumerism, from the one which believes that exploitation can be perpetual even if resources are finite. A new form of existence begins to take shape on the international scene. To this end, new ways of conceiving the State and Law are beginning to gain strength. Fuelled by decolonial reasoning, new understandings of what is meant by constitutionalism are raised. Among these, plurinationality arises. Aware of their umbilical relationship with Nature, native peoples now teach the world other ways of understanding the State, the Law, property, citizenship, and territory. Thus, the New Latin American Constitutionalism reverberates, bringing with it the urgency of a resignification of the State, in which it embraces the ethnic diversity of the peoples of the forest. In this vein, while such aspirations expand, it is questioned whether the International Society has adequate apparatus to deal with such diversity, or whether it still works at the service of predatory capital. More specifically, it is important to observe whether jurisdictional bodies with international competence are receptive to plurinational constitutionalism. Therefore, this research which comes as the product a long journey at the Law Post-Graduation Program of Catholic University of Pernambuco (focus area: Law, Process and Citizenship and Research field: Jurisdiction, Citizenship and Human Rights), will have as it’s basis the following problem: Does the Inter-American Court of Human Rights take into account the premises of plurinationality in the demands sentenced in the supervision phase regarding indigenous territories? We aimed here to assess through a quali-quanti research the dialogic sensitivity of this jurisdictional body to the territorial diversity historically experienced by the native peoples of Latin America. Therefore, in the present study, all judgments in the current phase of monitoring compliance related to land claims between States and indigenous peoples were submitted to analysis – Whereas we sought to test them through the analysis of the traits of plurinationality, it will be sought to verify whether the Court considers aspects such as dialogic openness, indigenous cosmovision, ancestry, and spirituality as a decision-making criterion, as well as whether it incorporates into its jurisprudential reasoning the broad conceptions of property and territoriality verified there. Gathering points at each testing line it was possible through graphic making (weak/medium/strong) to quantify the Court’s performance. From the data reading the results demonstrate an unstable approach of the Court in question to the peoples studied, given the generalizations and distances in some cases and significant understanding in others. It is fair to conclude that the main jurisdictional body in Latin America, although it has expanded its hermeneutic coverage, is still not satisfactorily open to the epistemological pluralism found through the rich ethnic-cultural diversity of the continent, not sufficiently departing from Eurocentric Law.