(i) the infrequency of the inspections despite the serious deficiencies found previously; (ii) the inadequacy of the verification, collection and recording of evidence during the inspections, and (iii) the absence of short- and medium-term consequences following the inspections. 216. Lastly, the Commission indicated that the facts of this case “reveal de facto discrimination against a specific group of people who have been marginalized from the enjoyment of the rights examined.” The Commission also considered that the State had “not adopted sufficient and effective measures to ensure, without discrimination, the rights of the workers found in the 1993, 1996, 1997 and 2000 inspections.” 217. In conclusion, the Commission argued that Brazil was internationally responsible for the violation of Article 6 of the American Convention, in relation to Articles 5, 7, 22 and 1(1) of this instrument, with regard to the Hacienda Brasil Verde workers identified in the 2000 inspection.353 In addition, it considered that the State had not taken sufficient and effective measures to ensure, without discrimination, the rights of the said workers in accordance with Article 1(1) of the Convention in relation to the rights recognized in Articles 5, 6, 7 and 22 of this instrument. 218. The representatives indicated that the prohibition of slave labor was a jus cogens obligation under international law and was also erga omnes in nature. They added that it was not possible to enumerate all contemporary forms of slavery, but these incorporated four fundamental elements: (i) control over other persons; (ii) the employers’ ownership of his workforce; (iii) use of violence or threat of use of violence, and (iv) discrimination that resulted in the dehumanization of those subjected to slavery. 219. The representatives asserted that Article 6 of the American Convention included four closely related concepts: slavery, servitude, forced labor and trafficking. They added that those four categories constituted the broadest concept of contemporary forms of slavery. Furthermore, although servitude, forced labor and trafficking were violations in themselves, they were also manifestations of contemporary forms of slavery. 220. The representatives indicated that, according to the 1926 Convention and the Supplementary Convention on the Abolition of Slavery, the Slave Trade and Institutions and Practices Similar to Slavery of 1956 (hereinafter “the 1956 Convention”), slavery referred to the exercise of any or all of the powers attaching to the right of ownership over another person; in other words, the powers to use, possess or dispose of another human being. Regarding forced labor, the representatives indicated that, in the case of the Ituango Massacres, the Court had identified the two main elements: (i) threat of punishment, and (ii) unwillingness to do the work. Lastly, trafficking referred to the slave trade or the conveyance of slaves. 221. The representatives argued that numerous indicators facilitated the identification of contemporary forms of slavery. They included: (i) recruitment, by means of false promises or deception; (ii) conveyance of persons for exploitation purposes; (iii) abuse of a position of vulnerability; (iv) control or restriction of freedom of movement; (v) control of personal property; (vi) retention of identification papers; (vii) intimidation or threats; (viii) physical or sexual violence; (ix) cruel or humiliating treatment; (x) paltry salaries and their retention; (xi) debt bondage; (xii) excessive working hours; (xiii) obligation to live in the place of work; (xiv) existence of measures to prevent workers leaving; (xv) unwillingness to begin or to In its Admissibility and Merits Report, the Commission argued this violation in relation to the workers identified in the 1993, 1996, 1997 and 2000 inspections. However, owing to the Court’s temporal competence and the Commission’s brief submitting the case, the Court will only take the argument into account in relation to the 2000 inspection. 353 57