in Miami, Florida, which led to the foundation of the Observatory of Justice for Afrodescendants in Latin America (OJALA). 1 The focus of the issue is on the adoption of what we call 'ethnoracial law' in Latin America since the late 1980s until the present. Each chapter contributes to this project with the analysis of one or two recent litigation(s) in which ethnoracial legal instruments were used as the case(s) unfolded in their particular national context, both within and beyond the confines of an actual courtroom. The comparative approach that the issue as a whole provides allows for an evaluation of the usefulness (or lack thereof) for Afrodescendants of ethnoracial law in its current forms in the region. We understand 'ethnoracial law' to encompass: 1) the articles of constitutions and special laws that recognize and define identity-based collective rights (generally over land or 'territory,' cultural practices, and perspective), and which form what are usually called 'multicultural legal instruments' (the right to be 'pluriversally' or 'decolonially' 2 different); and 2) the constitutional articles and special laws often referred to as 'racial equality law' or 'anti-discrimination law' adopted by constituent assemblies as well as municipal, provincial, or departmental, national, and international or multilateral governing bodies, which criminalize hate crimes and discrimination to guarantee the protection of Afrodescendants' rights and remedy wrongs they have experienced (the right to be the same). This distinction between the right to be different and the right to be the same has had notable relevance in Brazil, particularly when considering debates about political strategies within black social movements, which often separate representatives of urban and rural communities (