350. Finally, the Commission indicated that the application of the statute of limitations to the crime of subjection to slave labor was incompatible with the Brazilian State’s international obligations; also, that the domestic law that permits the prescription of this crime could not continue to be an obstacle for the investigation of the facts and the punishment of those responsible. Therefore, the Commission indicated that the State was responsible for the violation of Articles 8(1) and 25(1), in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 of the American Convention. 351. The representatives indicated that the Brazilian State was responsible for violating the right to judicial protection established in Article 8 of the Convention of the individuals who worked in Hacienda Brasil Verde because, even though it was aware of the existence of acts that constituted reduction to conditions similar to slavery, it failed in its obligation to investigate these acts within a reasonable time. They also argued that the State had not acted with the urgency that the case warranted to remove the victims from the situation that violated their rights. 352. The representatives also emphasized that, although 18 years had passed, absolute impunity existed with regard to the alleged facts, because the State had failed to comply with its obligation to investigate egregious human rights violations within a reasonable time. Therefore, it was internationally responsible for the “continuing violation” of the judicial guarantees protected by Article 8 of the Convention, to the detriment of the individuals who were working in Hacienda Brasil Verde prior to December 10, 1998. Lastly, the representatives indicated that the State had not complied with the requirement to conduct an exhaustive investigation ex officio or the guarantee of due diligence. 353. In addition, the representatives indicated that the Brazilian State was responsible for violating the judicial guarantees established in Article 25 of the Convention, to the detriment of the individuals who were working in Hacienda Brasil Verde, by failing to comply with its duty to investigate the acts diligently and exhaustively. Moreover, they indicated that the victims had not received any protection for their physical safety, and the authorities did not provide them with any counseling on comprehensive assistance. The representatives indicated that the victims had not participated in the proceedings, and thus had been unable to assert their rights. 354. In addition, the representatives argued that the contemporary forms of slavery are gross human rights violations, and their absolute prohibition by international law is a norm of jus cogens; therefore, the application of the statute of limitations was inadmissible. According to the representatives, the facts remained in impunity due, in great measure, to the prescription of the crimes for which criminal proceedings could have been opened. 355. The representatives also indicated that the failure of the authorities to take effective steps to respond to the complaints, and the recurrence of the reported facts, revealed a situation of structural discrimination in the State’s response that permitted the perpetuation of a situation of exploitation of a specific group of persons. Lastly, the representatives argued that the State had the duty to act and to investigate with urgent diligence because the authorities had been made aware that there could be children and adolescents in Hacienda Brasil Verde. 356. The State argued that the Commission had not indicated clearly and specifically the grounds for the violation of the obligation to respect judicial guarantees, and added that the State could not be held responsible for the possible failure of the criminal investigation and prosecution. 90