started working with the debt for the hotel. […] the pitiful wage they receive would never be enough to pay off their debts. In this regard, the owner of the hacienda profits by using workers who receive no salary for their work […]. […] The only way out of the hacienda is bordered by the office buildings and the house of the manager who does not allow the workers to leave […]. Added to this, the inspection was conducted based on information provided by a worker […] and several blank promissory notes signed by workers [were found]. […] In December 1996, the inspection found the same irregularities. Moreover, in 1989, information had already been provided on offenses against the organization of work and reduction to a condition analogous to slavery. The failure to investigate the facts promptly and the prescription of the other offenses when the Federal Public Prosecution Service became aware of the facts, made it impossible to file a criminal action. […] the owner of the hacienda, the third accused, was fully aware that, at the very least, he was committing the offense of violation of the workers’ rights by deception.136 146. Owing to the fact that the penalty established for the offense of which Mr. Quagliato Neto was accused was less than one year, the Public Prosecution Service proposed to suspend the proceedings against him for two years if he agreed to comply with certain conditions imposed by the federal judge.137 147. In July 1997, the federal judge issued a summons to Raimundo Alves de Rocha and Antônio Alves Vieira.138 On September 17, 1997, the federal judge ordered that a summons be issued to Mr. Quagliato Neto and conditioned the suspension of his prosecution on the acceptance of, and compliance with, a series of measures.139 148. Between September 1997 and June 1999, several summons were sent to João Luiz Quagliato Neto.140 The proceeding conducted by the Ministry of Labor in relation to a second visit in 1997 149. On July 31, 1997, the Regional Labor Prosecutor (PRT) of the 22nd region informed the PRT of the 8th region of “the irregularity concerning worker trafficking in the state of Piauí for other states, including the state of Pará.”141 On August 12, 1997, an administrative proceeding was opened by the PRT of the 8th region, requesting the Prosecutor General of the Republic to determine the possible criminal acts committed in relation to worker trafficking.142 150. On November 14, 1997, the Pará Regional Labor Delegation reported, with regard to Hacienda Brasil Verde, that even though some irregularities existed, such as charging the workers for their footwear and the absence of elements relating to health and safety in the workplace, the Delegation had “preferred not to act, but rather to provide advice so that the irregularities were rectified and […] labor laws observed. [This] procedure constituted a kind of incentive to encourage the employer to conform to legal standards.”143 136 Complaint of the Federal Public Prosecution Service of June 30, 1997 (evidence file, folios 4623 to 4626). 137 Complaint of the Federal Public Prosecution Service of June 30, 1997 (evidence file, folio 4627). 138 Communication No. 1183 of the Marabá Federal Judge of July 14, 1997 (evidence file, folio 4711). 139 Decision of the Marabá Federal Judge of September 17, 1997 (evidence file, folio 4719). Communications of the Marabá Judiciary (evidence file, folios 4722, 4724, 4727, 4728, 4730, 4731, 4732 and 4735). 140 141 Communication No. 2,357/2001 of the Labor Public Prosecutor of June 21, 2001 (evidence file, folio 7525). 142 Communication No. 2,357/2001 (evidence file, folio 7525). 143 Communication No. 2,357/2001 (evidence file, folio 7526). 36