156. On August 8, 2001, the proceedings were re-opened by the Xinguara state justice system and, on October 25, 2001, the Prosecutor ratified the complaint. Subsequently, on May 23, 2002, the judge admitted the complaint.156 On May 28, 2002, Mr. Quagliato Neto’s defense counsel asked the judge to declare that the criminal action against his client had terminated.157 157. On November 11, 2002, Raimundo Alves Rocha and Antônio Vieira filed their defense brief and, on August 5, 2003, the judge established new dates to receive the defense statements.158 On October 24 and November 18, 2003, the first statements offered by the defense were received.159 158. On November 21, 2003, the Public Prosecution Service of the state of Pará presented its final arguments, in which it asked that the charges against Raimundo Alves da Rocha and Antônio Alves Vieira be considered inadmissible and that they be acquitted owing to the absence of sufficient evidence of their authorship.160 159. On November 8, 2004, the state judiciary declared that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the criminal proceedings, and this gave rise to a conflict of competences.161 On September 26, 2007, the Third Section of the Superior Court of Justice informed the state judge that, having examined the conflict of competences in the case, it had decided that the competent jurisdiction was the federal jurisdiction.162 On December 11, 2007, the case file was forwarded to the federal jurisdiction of Marabá, Pará.163 160. Having summoned Raimundo Alves da Rocha and Antônio Alves Vieira to appear before the court on several occasions in 2008, and since they had failed to come forward, on July 3, 2008, the judge established a time limit for the parties to submit their final arguments.164 On July 10, 2008, the Federal Public Prosecution Service presented its final arguments in which it asked that the court order the termination of the criminal proceedings against Raimundo Alves da Rocha and Antônio Alves Vieira.165 In this regard, it set out the following considerations: […] the inspection report of the Ministry of Labor describes the harsh conditions experienced by the Hacienda Brasil Verde workers, with no potable water, sleeping in huts covered with plastic and straw, with dirt floors, and without sanitary facilities, without individual safety equipment, without any protection against inclement weather. In addition, it verified the practice of violation, by fraud, of rights protected by the labor laws. […] sufficient evidence exists of the authorship of the practice of the offenses of reduction to a condition similar to that of slavery (art. 149, caput), violation of freedom of work (art. 197.1) and illegal recruitment of workers from one part of national territory to another (art. 207) by debt bondage. 156 Ratification of the complaint (evidence file, folio 4824 to 4826). 157 Request of May 28, 2002, to declare the criminal proceedings terminated (evidence file, folio 4900). 158 Ruling of the state judge of August 5, 2003 (evidence file, folio 5523). Hearing to receive testimonial evidence of October 24, 2003 (evidence file, folio 5528), and hearing to receive testimonial evidence of November 18, 2003 (evidence file, folio 5532). 159 160 Final arguments of the Pará Public Prosecution Service (evidence file, folio 5544 to 5547). 161 Statement on conflict of competences (evidence file, folio 5557 to 5560). 162 Decision of the Superior Court of Justice (evidence file, folio 5588). 163 Certification of case file transfer (evidence file, folio 5592). 164 Ruling of the federal judge of May 26, 2008 (evidence file, folio 5600). 165 Final arguments of the Federal Public Prosecution Service (evidence file, folio 5616 to 5621). 38