the owner’s defense counsel in the domestic proceedings, and from the list provided by the petitioners on July 10, 2007, in the procedure before the Commission. 201. Meanwhile, the representatives argued that, during the inspection, 85 workers were found, based on the Ministry of Labor’s inspection report and the public civil action of May 30, 2000, filed by the Labor Public Prosecutor before the Labor Court of Conceição do Araguaia. They also clarified that the names indicated by the Commission as Francisco das Chagas S. Lira and Francisco das Chagas da Silva Lima refer to one and the same person, whose name is Francisco das Chagas da Silva Lira, and that the name Francisco das Chagas Da Silva Lima, should be substituted by Francisco Mariano da Silva. 202. To the contrary, the State argued that, of the 81 workers indicated in the March 2000 inspection report, 49 had been hired for Hacienda Brasil Verde and 32 for Hacienda San Carlos. Thus, the State considered that the only presumed victims that could be included in relation to the March 2000 inspection would be the 49 individuals who were working for Hacienda Brasil Verde. B.2. Considerations of the Court 203. The Court has verified that Hacienda Brasil Verde and Hacienda San Carlos were contiguous and formed part of the Quagliato Group, owned by João Luiz Quagliato Neto. Thus, although, in general, the case refers to the Hacienda Brasil Verde workers, the Court has verified that the work permits of some of the presumed victims indicated that they had been hired for Hacienda San Carlos, even though they had been recruited to work in Hacienda Brasil Verde. Also, in some cases, the work contracts of the workers rescued during the March 2000 inspection mentioned both haciendas, which reinforces the idea that, in practice, they constituted a single rural property where the presumed victims in the case worked. Consequently, the Court rejects the State’s argument and finds it pertinent to make this clarification regarding the connection between the two haciendas, despite the fact that, hereinafter, it will refer mainly and in general to the Hacienda Brasil Verde workers.261 204. Furthermore, the Court has verified that the three people indicated by the representatives who were additional to those on the Commission’s list were: 1. Antônio Pereira dos Santos; 2. Francisco das Chagas Bastos Souza, and 3. Francisco Pereira da Silva. In addition, the Court observes that the State did not refer to the following workers indicated by the Commission and the representatives: 1. Antônio Francisco da Silva Fernandes; 2. Francisco das Chagas Rodrigues de Sousa; 3. Gonçalo Luiz Furtado, and 4. Paulo Pereira dos Santos. 205. As indicated in the preceding section, bearing in mind that, in order to decide this case, the Court must have a minimum degree of certainty about the existence of these persons262 in order to prove their status as presumed victims, the Court used the following probative instruments provided by the parties: (i) Record of offenses (RI); (ii) Record of hacienda employees (RE); (iii) Contract termination document (TC); (iv) Physical Verification Form (VF), and (v) List of workers indicated by the defense counsel of the manager and the gato during the domestic criminal proceedings (PP). Cf. Report of March 31, 2000, on the inspection of Hacienda Brasil Verde (evidence file, folios 9571 and 9573); Report of October 20, 1999, on the inspection of Hacienda Brasil Verde (evidence file, folio 7546); 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. 261 262 Cf. Case of the Massacres of El Mozote and neighboring places, para. 54. 50