payment; (ii) absence of limits to the duration of the services; (iii) failure to define the nature of the services; (iv) that the persons live on the property where they provide the services; (v) control over the movements of these persons; (vi) existence of measures to prevent escapes; (vii) psychological control of the individual; (viii) the victims are unable to change their circumstances, and (ix) cruel and abusive treatment. 211. The Commission also indicated that forced labor refers to those services provided under threat of punishment, and that are provided unwillingly by the victims. It added that the fact that payment is received in exchange for the services does not prevent them from being classified as servitude or forced labor. Lastly, the Commission asserted that there is a close relationship between the different abusive practices such as forced labor, slavery, debt bondage, trafficking351 and labor exploitation. The interrelationship between these conducts supposes that one and the same act can be classified under different concepts and that they are never mutually exclusive. 212. The Commission stated that the testimony of the rescued workers and the other evidence provided352 reveal that, in Hacienda Brasil Verde: (i) the workers who wanted to leave the hacienda were subjected to death threats; (ii) the workers were prevented from leaving the property freely; (iii) there were no salaries or these were derisory; (iv) workers were indebted to the owner of the hacienda, and (v) the conditions of housing, health and alimentation were appalling. On this basis, the Commission concluded that the hacienda owner and foremen used the workers as if they owned them. 213. In addition, the Commission indicated that debt bondage existed in this case. The workers acquired huge debts with the gatos and the hacienda foremen for their transfer, food and other items. Since they received little or no wages, it was almost impossible to pay off the debt and, until it was paid, the workers could not leave the hacienda. The Commission also considered that the case involved forced labor because the services were provided under threat of violence and against the will of the workers. It indicated that, although the workers initially agreed to work voluntarily, this agreement was obtained based on false promises and they were unable to leave the hacienda when they discovered the real working conditions. 214. The Commission asserted that the Brazilian State was aware of the phenomenon of slave labor in its territory long before the events of this case. Moreover, not only did the State know about the problem in general terms, but it was very well aware of the situation in Hacienda Brasil Verde. The Commission indicated that, even though the 1989 and 1997 inspections fall outside the Court’s competence, they should be taken into account as the context of what happened in the hacienda and of the State’s knowledge of the situation. In the Commission’s opinion, all the requirements are fulfilled for declaring Brazil’s responsibility by omission; namely: (i) the existence of a real and imminent risk; (ii) the State’s knowledge of this risk; (iii) the special situation of the individuals affected, and (iv) the reasonable possibilities of prevention. 215. The Commission recognized the efforts that Brazil had made to combat slave labor; however, it stressed that all the relevant measures were taken after 2003. In particular, the Commission argued that there is no evidence that Brazil had taken any measure to prevent and protect the victims in this specific case from 1998 to 2000. It underlined, for example: The Commission did not include in persons in its Admissibility and Merits Report because the issue was not discussed while it was processing the case. However, in its final observations, it indicated that since the issue had been discussed during the processing of the case before the Court, it would be possible to classify some conducts as trafficking. 351 Inspection of March 15, 2000, Report of March 31, 2000 (evidence file, folio 9571) and Public civil action of May 30, 2000 (evidence file, folio 1049). 352 56