364. The Court reiterates that exceptional due diligence was required in this case, due to the particular situation of vulnerability of the Hacienda Brasil Verde workers and the extreme gravity of the situation reported to the State. Consequently, it was essential to take the pertinent measures in order to avoid delays in processing the proceedings to ensure a prompt decision and its execution.480 In this regard, the European Court has also indicated that special diligence is required in cases in which the integrity of an individual is at stake, and that States have a positive obligation “requiring the penalization and effective prosecution of any act aimed at maintaining a person in [a] situation” of slavery, servitude or forced or compulsory labor481. That court has also established that the requirement to investigate trafficking in persons “does not depend on a complaint; rather, once the matter has come to the attention of the authorities they must act of their own motion.” Lastly, it has indicated that the requirement of due diligence is “implicit in all cases, but where the possibility of removing the individual from the harmful situation is available, the investigation must be undertaken as a matter of urgency.”482 365. In order to examine due diligence, the Court will now make a brief summary of the actions in the criminal proceedings: on March 10, 1997, José da Costa Oliveira and José Ferreira dos Santos made a statement before the Pará Federal Police Department, Marabá Delegation, in which they declared that they had worked in and escaped from Hacienda Brasil Verde (supra para. 143). As a result of the Ministry of Labor’s report, on June 30, 1997, the Federal Public Prosecution Service filed criminal charges against Raimundo Alves de Rocha, Antônio Alves Vieira and João Luiz Quagliato Neto (supra para. 145). On September 23, 1999, at the request of the Public Prosecution Service, the federal judge authorized a two-year conditional suspension of the proceedings filed against João Luiz Quagliato Neto (supra para. 149). On March 16, 2001, the substitute federal judge in charge of the case declared the absolute lack of jurisdiction of the federal system of justice to hear the proceedings (supra para. 151). On August 8, 2001, the proceedings were re-opened by the state system of justice of Xinguara, and on October 25, 2001, the Prosecution ratified the complaint. Subsequently, on May 23, 2002, the judge admitted the complaint. On November 8, 2004, the state system of justice declared itself incompetent to hear the criminal proceedings, and this gave rise to a conflict of competences. On September 26, 2007, the Superior Court of Justice advised that it was the federal jurisdiction that had competence. On December 11, 2007, the case file was forwarded to the federal jurisdiction of Marabá, Pará (supra para. 155). 366. On July 10, 2008, a Pará federal judge handed down his ruling and declared that, 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 eight years, and that the statute of limitations for the penalty was 12 years, prescription would not apply only if the accused were sentenced to the maximum penalty. In this regard the judge asserted that it was fairly improbable that the accused would be sentenced to this penalty, so that prescription was inevitable. On this basis, as well as owing to the State’s lack of action, the principles of procedural economy an criminal policy, the judge decided to declare the criminal action against Raimundo Alves da Rocha and Antônio Alves Vieira extinct (supra para. 157). 367. The Court finds that there was a delay in the implementation of the proceedings, and that the conflicts of competence and the failure of the judicial authorities to act diligently resulted in delays in the criminal proceedings. The Court considers that the State has not 480 Cf. Case of Gonzales Lluy et al., para. 311. ECHR, Case of Siliadin v. France. No. 73316/01. Judgment of July 26, 2005, para. 112, and Case of Rantsev v. Cyprus and Russia. No. 25965/04. Judgment of January 7, 2010, para. 285. 481 ECHR, Rantsev v. Cyprus and Russia. No. 25965/04. Judgment of January 7, 2010, para. 288, and C.N. v. The United Kingdom. No. 4239/08. Judgment of November 13, 2012, para. 69. 482 92