397. Both the delay resulting from the lack of procedural action and the delay arising from the conflict of competences contravened due diligence in the criminal proceedings (supra para. 367). The Court notes that, following various actions with no procedural relevance, on May 28, 2002, it was declared that the criminal action filed against João Luiz Quagliato Neto had extinguished and, on July 10, 2008, it was declared that the penalty had prescribed with regard to the wrongful acts attributed to Raimundo Alves de Rocha and Antônio Alves Vieira, following a 10-year delay in processing the case. 398. The Court considers that the 1997 criminal action should have responded to the facts denounced with special diligence. To the contrary, the fact that it lasted so long based on factors that can be attributed to the judicial authorities, made it impossible to examine the case. The Court emphasizes that, in its declaration of prescription, the Public Prosecution Service indicated that “there [was] sufficient evidence of the authorship and practice of the crimes of reduction to a condition similar to that of a slave […], violation of freedom of work […], and illegal recruitment of workers from one part of national territory to another […], by debt bondage.” However, despite being aware of these factors, the judicial authorities failed to ensure the necessary procedural impetus to determine the responsibilities in the case promptly and expeditiously, together with the measures to protect the victims and provide them with redress. 399. Rather, the judicial authorities considered that the proceedings had “been condemned to failure from the outset,” and that, based on the probative elements provided to the criminal proceedings, it had been useless to continue such proceedings, taking into account also “the lack of action by the State, procedural economy and criminal policy.”504 400. The 1997 criminal proceedings were initiated and ended without the merits of the matter having been examined, despite the extreme seriousness of the acts with which the accused were charged. In addition to the conflict of competences and other procedures, the proceedings did not analyze the facts of the case, and did not represent an effective mechanism to examine the perpetration of the crime of reduction to a condition similar to that of a slave established in article 149 of the Brazilian Penal Code at that time, or the responsibility of the accused, and reparation for the victims. The only measure that could be considered a reparation was that agreed with Mr. Quagliato Neto and consisted in the delivery of six baskets of basic commodities to a charity in São Paulo, in exchange for the suspension of the proceedings against him. 401. In addition, regarding the proceedings opened before the Labor Justice System, the Court notes that, on January 15, 1999, the court issued a recommendation to João Luiz Quagliato Neto, owner of Hacienda Brasil Verde, that he abstain from the practice of charging workers for their footwear, noting that, to the contrary, judicial action would be taken against him, and ordering that the case file be archived. Despite the egregious nature of the situations referred to in the 1997 inspection report, the Pará Regional Labor Delegation preferred “not to act, but rather to provide advice that the rulings [be] rectified.” 402. With regard to the public civil action filed against João Luiz Quagliato Neto in 2000, the Court underscores that this concluded with a conciliation under which Mr. Quagliato Neto undertook not to undertake or permit work under a “slavery regime” and to provide decent working conditions, and was warned that, to the contrary, he would be sanctioned with fines. Even though the justice system had significant information regarding the facts verified in the hacienda, it merely reached an agreement without considering in detail the gravity of the facts or the need to make reparation to the hacienda’s workers. 504 Judgment of July 10, 2008 (evidence file, folio 5622). 99