151. On January 13, 1998, the Labor Prosecutor requested a further inspection of Hacienda Brasil Verde.144 On March 5, 1998, the Pará Regional Labor Delegate responded that the procedure had not been carried out, but “had been scheduled.”145 152. On June 17, 1998, the Labor Prosecutor requested information on the “current situation” of Hacienda Brasil Verde based on an article in the newspaper “O Liberal” of May 31, 1998.146 On July 8, 1998, the Regional Labor Delegate reported that the hacienda had been inspected in October 1997, when “considerable progress” had been verified in relation to the irregularities noted during the previous inspection.147 B. Facts that fall within the Court’s temporal jurisdiction B.1. Continuation of the criminal proceedings against Raimundo Alves de Rocha, Antônio Alves Vieira and João Luiz Quagliato Neto 153. On September 13, 1999, Mr. Quagliato Neto appeared before the court and the preliminary hearing of his case was held.148 The day following this hearing, Mr. Quagliato Neto stated that he accepted the conditions imposed by the federal judge in order to suspend his trial, namely: delivery of six baskets of basic commodities to a charity organization in Ourinhos in the state of São Paulo.149 On September 23, 1999, at the request of the Public Prosecution Service, the federal judge authorized the two-year conditional suspension of the proceedings against João Luiz Quagliato Neto.150 154. Between December 10, 1998, and May 1999, Raimundo Alves de Rocha and Antônio Alves Vieira were summoned to testify on several occasions. 151 On May 23, 1999, they submitted their defense briefs.152 On March 2, 2000, the Ministry of Labor agents who had conducted the 1997 inspection testified.153 155. During 2000, various hearings were scheduled in order to receive evidence. However, on March 16, 2001, the substitute federal judge in charge of the case declared the “absolute lack of jurisdiction of federal justice” to hear the proceedings, because the offenses that were being investigated constituted violations of individual rights of a group of workers, and not crimes against the organization of work; consequently, the case file was forwarded to the state justice system in Xinguara, Pará.154 The judge considered that, based on case law in relation to jurisdiction ratione materiae, this could not be extended, at the risk of nullification, and it was necessary to recognize it ex officio.155 No appeal of any kind was filed against this decision. 144 Communication No. 2,357/2001 (evidence file, folio 7526). 145 Communication No. 2,357/2001 (evidence file, folio 7526). 146 Communication No. 2,357/2001 (evidence file, folio 7526). 147 Communication No. 2,357/2001 (evidence file, folio 7526). 148 Preliminary hearing of September 13, 1999 (evidence file, folio 4765). 149 Brief of João Luiz Quagliato Neto of September 14, 1999 (evidence file, folio 4767). 150 Decision of the Marabá substitute federal judge of September 23, 1999 (evidence file, folio 4768). Communications of the Marabá Judiciary (evidence file, folios 4723, 4725, 4729, 4730, 4732, 4733, 4737 and 4739). 151 152 Brief of Raimundo Alves de Rocha (evidence file, folio 4750); brief of Antônio Vieira (evidence file, folio 4752). 153 Testimonial statements (evidence file, folios 4784 to 4791). 154 Decision of the Marabá substitute federal judge of March 16, 2001 (evidence file, folio 4813 to 4816). 155 Decision of the Marabá substitute federal judge of March 16, 2001 (evidence file, folio 4816). 37