continue working; (xvi) absence of informed consent to the working conditions, and (xvii) impossibility of changing the worker’s situation freely. 222. The representatives argued that, in the instant case, a situation of slavery had been constituted in Hacienda Brasil Verde, in its contemporary and similar forms. In their opinion, this conclusion was revealed by the following facts: (i) the workers were recruited by gatos to be exploited for labor; (ii) the workers’ consent to travel to Hacienda Brasil Verde was flawed, because they had no real knowledge of what their salary and their working conditions would be; (iii) the hacienda manager retained and, at times, altered the [work permits]; (iv) the workers were obliged to sign different types of work contracts and blank documents, although most of them were illiterate; (v) the debts contracted by the workers with the gatos for transport and salary advances; (vi) the workers had to pay the hacienda for their tools, personal hygiene items and food at inflated prices; (vii) the workers could not leave the hacienda if they still had debts; (viii) the working day lasted more than 12 hours; (ix) the working conditions were unacceptable, with unhealthy and insufficient food, and with no health care; (x) the hacienda had armed guards who prevented the workers from leaving; (xi) workers who expressed a wish to leave the hacienda were threatened and beaten, and (xii) the workers were obliged to live at the hacienda. 223. Furthermore, the representatives considered that, owing to the fraudulently imposed debts and the armed guards, the workers were deprived of their liberty. The threats and beatings represented a risk to the life and physical integrity of the workers. In addition, the execrable working conditions violated their honor and dignity. Lastly, the situation prevented the workers from freely developing their life project, and negated their right to recognition of juridical personality. Consequently, owing to the complex nature of slavery, servitude and trafficking in persons, which involved multiple offenses, they indicated that the rights to recognition of juridical personality (Article 3 of the American Convention), personal integrity (Article 5), personal liberty and safety (Article 7), dignity and privacy (Article 11), and freedom of movement and residence (Article 22) had been violated, in addition to the prohibition of discrimination. 224. The representatives indicated that a situation of trafficking in persons had also been constituted in this case. All the elements required to constitute trafficking as defined in the Palermo Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons Especially Women and Children were met in Hacienda Brasil Verde; this included the transportation and transfer of workers by means of deception and fraud for the purposes of exploiting their labor. 225. According to the representatives, in Brazil, the practice of slave labor was structural in nature and had been tolerated by the State. They added that the facts of this case had taken place in this general context and, therefore, the Court should establish certain assumptions and invert the burden of proof. They also argued that certain evidentiary shortcomings in the case were due, precisely, to the State’s lack of diligence when inspecting and investigating the hacienda. 226. Regarding the State’s responsibility for human rights violations committed by private individuals, the representatives agreed with the arguments of the Inter-American Commission. Specifically, they argued that, in this case, most of the victims were poor men, between 17 and 40 years of age, Afrodescendant and mulatto, from extremely poor states such as Piauí, where they lived in conditions of extreme poverty and vulnerability. This situation allegedly corresponded to “structural discrimination.” Thus, according to the representatives, “the Brazilian State failed to comply with its obligation to take effective steps to eliminate the practice of forced labor, trafficking in persons and debt bondage, and to remove the obstacles to access to justice based on the victims’ origin, ethnicity, race and economic status, which permitted the subsistence of factors of structural discrimination that 58