303. The description of the facts in the preceding paragraphs underscores the existence of a mechanism to recruit workers using fraud and deception. The Court also considers that the facts of the case indicate the existence of a situation of debt bondage because, from the moment the workers received the money advanced by the gato, until they received their paltry salaries with the deductions for food, medicines and other products, they were contracting a debt that they could never repay. As an aggravating factor to this system known in some countries as the “truck system,” “peonage or debt slavery” or “system of barracão,” the workers were subjected to excessive working hours by threats and violence, while living in degrading conditions. In addition, the workers had no possibility of being able to escape from this situation owing to: (i) the presence of armed guards; (ii) the restrictions to leaving the hacienda without paying off their debts; (iii) the physical and psychological coercion by gatos and security guards, and (iv) the fear of reprisals and of dying in the forest if their tried to flee. These conditions were magnified by the situation of vulnerability of the workers, who were mostly illiterate and from a distant region of the country, who had no knowledge of the area surrounding Hacienda Brasil Verde and who were subjected to inhumane living conditions. 304. In view of the foregoing, the Court finds it evident that the workers rescued from Hacienda Brasil Verde were in a situation of debt bondage and subject to forced labor. Nevertheless, the Court considers that the specific characteristics of the situation to which the 85 workers rescued on March 15, 2000, were subjected exceeds the limits of debt bondage and forced labor, and meets the strictest criteria of the definition of slavery established by the Court (supra para. 272); in particular, the exercise of the powers attaching to the right of ownership. In this regard, the Court notes that: (i) the workers were subject to the control of the gatos, foremen, and armed guards of the hacienda and ultimately, of its owner; (ii) in a way that restricted their personal liberty and autonomy; (iii) without their free consent; (iv) by means of threats, and physical and psychological violence, (v) in order to exploit their forced labor in inhumane conditions. Furthermore, the circumstances of the escape undertaken by Antônio Francisco da Silva and Gonçalo Luiz Furtado and the risks they faced until they were able to report what had happened to the Federal Police reveal: (vi) the vulnerability of the workers, and (vii) the environment of coercion that existed in the hacienda, which (viii) did not allow the workers to change their situation and recover their liberty. Based on all the foregoing, the Court concludes that the situation verified in Hacienda Brasil Verde in March 2000 constituted a situation of slavery. 305. Furthermore, taking into consideration the context of this case as regards the capture and recruitment of workers from the poorest regions of the country in particular, using fraud, deception and false promises, to bring them to haciendas in the states of Maranhão, Mato Grosso, Pará and Tocantins (supra para. 112), as well as the expert opinion of Federal Prosecutor Raquel Elias Dodge during the public hearing in this case, in which she provided details of the contemporary trafficking in persons in Brazil in order to exploit their labor, the “interview notes” of the workers rescued as a result of the March 2000 inspection, the reports of Antônio Francisco da Silva and Gonçalo Luiz Furtado that originated the said inspection, and the testimony of Marcos Antônio Lima, Francisco Fabiano Leandro, Rogerio Felix Silva, and Francisco das Chagas Bastos Sousa, during the on-site procedure in this case, the Court finds it proved that the workers rescued in March 2000 had been victims of trafficking. 306. In the instant case, the representatives argued that, in addition, the context and the situation in Hacienda Brasil Verde in March 2000 constituted violations of the rights to juridical personality, personal integrity, personal liberty, honor and dignity, and to freedom of movement and residence. In this regard, the Court notes that these arguments refer to the facts that have already been analyzed under Article 6 of the Convention. Accordingly, the Court considers that, due to the nature of slavery as a crime that violates multiple norms, 78