344. In this chapter, the Court will proceed to examine the arguments submitted by the parties and will develop pertinent legal considerations concerning the alleged violations of the rights to judicial guarantees and to judicial protection. To this end, it will make its analysis in the following order: (a) the alleged lack of due diligence; (b) the alleged violation of the reasonable time in the criminal proceedings, and (c) the alleged absence of effective judicial protection. The Court will also analyze the investigations conducted into the alleged disappearance of Iron Canuto da Silva and Luis Ferreira da Cruz. A. Arguments of the parties and of the Commission 345. The Commission considered that the State was responsible for failing to adopt measures to protect the judicial guarantees within a reasonable time. In this regard, the Commission indicated that the State was responsible for the violation of Article 8 of the Convention by failing in it duty to prevent and to investigate slave labor because, despite being aware of the existence of this situation in Hacienda Brasil Verde since 1988 owing to the reports that had been presented, it was not diligent in determining responsibilities for the facts. 346. The Commission indicated that the criminal proceedings that were opened in June 1997 and concluded in 2008 were characterized by structural factors of impunity; namely: (i) the existence of an unjustified delay due to the conflict of competences between the federal and state jurisdictions that lasted for almost 10 years; (ii) the absence of a real willingness to investigate with due diligence; (iii) the option given to the owner of the hacienda to suspend the proceedings in exchange for him providing a basic basket of commodities to the victims, and (iv) the extinguishment of the possibility of punishment owing to the statute of limitations, even though, pursuant to the Court’s case law, the conducts of slavery and forced labor constitute egregious human rights violations that should not be subject to this mechanism. 347. The Commission also considered that the State was responsible for the violation of Article 25 of the Convention because, even though it was aware of the existing situation in Hacienda Brasil Verde, since 1989, the victims did not have effective judicial mechanisms to protect their rights, punish those responsible, and obtain reparation, because a complete and effective investigation was not conducted to identify those responsible for the facts, and an effective judicial remedy was not guaranteed to protect the workers from acts that violated their rights. The Commission added that the situation of impunity that reigned in this case persists to date. 348. The Commission alleged that the State had failed to ensure access to justice, determination of the truth of the facts, investigation and punishment of those responsible, and reparation for the consequences of the violations. 349. In addition, the Commission argued that the case provided examples of specific actions in access to justice that fall within the definition of structural discrimination because, not only was there a failure to institute criminal proceedings when labor irregularities were found, but when the labor proceedings were opened, a conciliation agreement was reached with the owner of the hacienda, without taking the victims into consideration and, in this agreement, the authorities underscored that, if the accused engaged in slave labor practices again, he would have to pay a fine for each worker, whether they were “white or black.” b. to develop the possibilities of judicial remedy; and c. to ensure that the competent authorities shall enforce such remedies when granted. 89