the inspection report dated March 15, 2000, the Labor Public Prosecutor filed a public civil action against João Luiz Quagliato before the Araguaia Labor Judge (supra para. 179). 388. On July 20, 2000, a hearing was held on the charges filed by the Public Prosecution Service before the Conciliation and Prosecution Board of Araguaia. In May 2002, the Ministry of Labor conducted a further inspection to verify compliance with the commitments agreed between the Labor Public Prosecutor and several rural employers and, in the course of this inspection, a visit was made to Hacienda Brasil Verde. Following the inspection, the Labor Public Prosecutor concluded that the employers were complying with their commitments and that, consequently, direct administration of the employees by the employer had eliminated the workers’ financial and physical dependence on the gatos, which had been the cause of the exploitation of forced labor and conditions similar to those of slavery (supra paras. 181 and 184). 389. Finally, with regard to the criminal proceedings resulting from the March 2000 inspection, the Court notes that, during the public hearing, one of the expert witnesses and also the representatives referred to criminal proceedings opened into the facts documented on March 15, 2000, in Hacienda Brasil Verde. However, the State had made no mention of these proceedings, and the Court had no information about them up until that moment. The Court asked the State to present a complete copy of the said proceedings so that it would have all the available information in order to deliver judgment. In this regard, the State advised that, despite the actions taken, it had been unable to obtain a copy of proceedings No. 2001.39.01.000270-0, opened in 2001, before the Second Jurisdiction of the Marabá Federal Justice Department, state of Pará. 390. Nevertheless, public information available on the official website of the Federal Justice Department in the state of Pará reveals that these criminal proceedings were filed before the Marabá Federal Court on February 28, 2001, and subsequently transferred to the Xinguara State Court, state of Pará, on August 3, 2001. Nothing happened in these proceedings for 10 years, at least up until June 2, 2011, and there is no other information in this regard. 495 i) The effectiveness of the proceedings and the existence of an effective remedy 391. The Court has indicated that Article 25(1) of the Convention establishes, in broad terms, the obligation of States to provide everyone subject to their jurisdiction with an effective judicial remedy against acts that violate their fundamental rights.496 392. In addition, the Court has established that, for the State to comply with the provisions of Article 25 of the Convention, the formal existence of the remedies is not sufficient, rather they must be effective; in other words, they must lead to results or solutions to the violations of rights recognized in either the Convention, the Constitution or the law. This means that the remedy must be appropriate to counteract the violation and that its implementtion by the competent authority must be effective. Likewise, an effective remedy signifies that the analysis of a judicial remedy by the competent authority cannot be reduced to a mere formality; rather, that authority must examine the reasons cited by the plaintiff and issue an express opinion on them.497 Those remedies that are illusory, owing to the general situation Website of the Pará Federal Justice Department: https://processual.trf1.jus.br/consultaProcessual/processo. php?proc=200139010002700&secao=MBA&pg=1&trf1_captcha_id=2dc48777b78e795a538b3aa440996f7b&trf1_c aptcha=f4gj&enviar=Pesquisar, consulted on October 10, 2016. 495 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Preliminary objections, para. 91, and Case of Maldonado Ordoñez, para. 108. 496 Cf. Case of López Álvarez v. Honduras. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 1, 2006. Series C No. 141, para. 96, and Case of Maldonado Ordoñez, para. 109. 497 97