[…] despite verification of the authorship and perpetration of the criminal acts, unfortunately, the offenses described in articles 197.1 and 207 of the Penal Code are already subject to the statute of limitations, considering that the facts were verified between April 21 and 30, 1997, and the maximum penalty for the respective offenses is from one to three years. Consequently, the state criminal action has prescribed based on article 109, VI of the Brazilian Penal Code. Regarding the offense described in article 149 of the Penal Code, although the maximum penalty would end in April 2009, taking into account that this executive body was unable to find further elements that would sufficiently increase the eventual penalty to be applied, it must conclude that, in view of the possible penalty, the statute of limitations applies.166 161. On July 10, 2008, in his ruling, the federal judge of the Pará Section declared that the criminal action had terminated with regard to Raimundo Alves da Rocha and Antônio Alves Vieira, taking into account that more than 10 years had passed since the complaint had been filed, that the maximum penalty that could be applied was 8 years, and that the penalty prescribed in 12 years; also that only if they had been sentenced to the maximum penalty would prescription not be in order.167 The judge stated that it was “fairly improbable” that they would be sentenced to this penalty, so that prescription was “inevitable.” He considered that the probative elements produced during the criminal proceedings were “meaningless.” Based on the foregoing, and on the lack of action by the state, criminal policy, and procedural economy, the judge decided to declare the criminal proceedings extinct. 168 B.2. Continuation of the procedure conducted by the Ministry of Labor in relation to a second visit in 1997 162. On October 13, 1998, the Labor Public Prosecutor asked the Pará Regional Labor Delegation to conduct a further inspection in the hacienda owing to the time that had passed since the last one.169 On February 8, 1999, the Pará Regional Labor Delegation advised that it had not carried out the inspection due to lack of financial resources. 170 On June 15, 1999, the Prosecutor repeated the request.171 163. On January 15, 1999, the Labor Public Prosecutor recommended to the owner of Hacienda Brasil Verde that he abstain from the practice of charging for footwear “at the risk of judicial measures being taken” in this regard.172 B.3. The visit to Hacienda Brasil Verde in 2000 164. In February 2000, the gato known as “Meladinho” recruited workers in the municipality of Barras, state of Piauí, to work in Hacienda Brasil Verde.173 The gato indicated that they would receive a salary of 10 reales for each “alqueire of juquira they cleared,”174 which the workers considered a very attractive salary. Furthermore, as part of the offer, the gato gave those who were interested an advance on the salary of between 30 and 60 reales. 166 Final arguments of the Federal Public Prosecution Service (evidence file, folios 5619 to 5621). 167 Judgment of July 10, 2008 (evidence file, folio 5622). 168 Judgment of July 10, 2008 (evidence file, folio 5622). 169 Communication No. 2,357/2001 (evidence file, folio 7526). 170 Communication No. 2,357/2001 (evidence file, folio 7527). 171 Communication No. 2,357/2001 (evidence file, folio 7527). 172 Communication No. 2,357/2001 (evidence file, folio 7527). Cf. Report of March 31, 2000, on the inspection of Hacienda Brasil Verde (evidence file, folios 9571 to 9573); statement by Francisco Fabiano Leandro, received during the on-site procedure carried out on June 6, 2016; statement by Francisco das Chagas Bastos Souza, received during the on-site procedure carried out on June 6, 2016, and statement by Antônio Francisco da Silva, received during the on-site procedure carried out on June 6, 2016. 173 174 “Alqueire” is a rural unit of measurement used in certain parts of Brazil. 39