in other words, on its definition as the exercise of ownership of a person, more than on indications, external or merely contextual elements, as claimed by the representatives. 233. The State indicated that, in the instant case, there was no evidence that slavery, forced labor or servitude occurred in Hacienda Brasil Verde following Brazil’s acceptance of the Court’s jurisdiction. It argued that the March 2000 inspection had concluded that the Hacienda Brasil Verde workers were in a situation that jeopardized their health and their physical integrity and, therefore, rescued them. This inspection verified degrading working conditions and numerous violations of labor rights under the laws of Brazil, and that was sufficient to justify their rescue. However, at that time, it did not find any deprivation of liberty, or the exercise of any of the powers attaching to the right of ownership of the rescued workers. The State indicated that this situation could possibly have been an offense under article 149 of the Brazilian Penal Code, but could never have been characterized as slavery, servitude or forced labor as understood under the relevant rules of international human rights law. The State stressed that the mere fact of the rescue of the workers was not sufficient to justify a violation of the American Convention, because the laws of Brazil also established this measure for less serious situations. 234. The State asserted that both the inspection and the dismissals that occurred over the eight months prior to the March 2000 inspection revealed that the workers provided their services in precarious and temporary conditions, and with a high rotation, which was usual in rural activities in the state of Pará. It added that there had been no impediment for the workers to abandon their work in the hacienda and that there was no indication of armed guards at the said hacienda. 235. Brazil argued that the representatives and the Commission had the burden of proving that the Hacienda Brasil Verde workers had been subject to some of the attributes of the right of ownership, that they had been deprived of their liberty or subjected to unpayable debts. In the State’s opinion, the representatives and the Commission had not been able to prove the foregoing. In particular, the State argued that evidence contemporary with the facts, such as the inspection reports, should be given preference, rather than the testimonial evidence provided during the current proceedings because, owing to the time that has passed, the testimony was imprecise and contradictory. 236. The State denied that the evidence on which the representatives justified their arguments was sufficient to prove the presence of slave labor. In particular, Brazil asserted that: (i) indefinite contracts were a usual practice that was more advantageous for the workers under the laws of Brazil; (ii) the purpose of the signature of blank contracts was to defraud the workers, paying them less than was legally required, but it did not affect their personal liberty, and (iii) working in degrading conditions did not constitute a violation of Article 6 of the American Convention. It added that, in the following inspection, in May 2002, the situation of the hacienda’s workers was satisfactory and it only resulted in fines being imposed for minor infractions of labor laws. 237. The State indicated that it could not be held responsible for every violation of human rights committed by private individuals in its territory To the contrary, this would entail a presumption of the State’s international responsibility. Brazil argued that there was no evidence of the participation or acquiescence of state agents in this case, as required by the Court’s case law. In its opinion, the representatives should have proved specific violations of Articles 1(1) and 2 of the American Convention with regard to duly represented victims that fell within the Court’s jurisdiction based on its temporal and material limitations. The State indicated that there was no evidence of any connection between State agents and Hacienda Brasil Verde. It also asserted that the possible shortcomings in the investigation and 60