type of situation to which the presumed victims were subjected in Hacienda Brasil Verde, the Court will describe the obligations of the State that may have been violated in this case. 295. Initially, it should be pointed out that there is no dispute between the parties about the historical evolution of the phenomenon of slavery in Brazil; particularly, in rural areas. Furthermore, there is no dispute concerning the reports presented by the Comissão Pastoral da Terra and other organisations, starting in the 1970s, about the occurrence of “slave labor” in the north and northeast of the country, or about Hacienda Brasil Verde specifically, from 1988 to 2000 (supra paras. 110 to 115). Lastly, the Court considers that there is no dispute regarding the fact that State agents did not participate actively and directly in the subjection of the workers to the alleged situation of “slave labor” in Hacienda Brasil Verde, but rather this involved private third parties. 296. Regarding the specific facts of the case that were alleged to violate Article 6(1) of the American Convention, following a careful examination of the case file and the evidence submitted by the parties to this litigation, the Court has established the relevant facts, and these are described below. 297. In February 2000, the gato known as “Meladinho” recruited dozens of workers in the municipality of Barras, state of Piauí, to work in Hacienda Brasil Verde (supra para. 164). 298. To reach Hacienda Brasil Verde, the recruited workers traveled for around three days by bus, train and truck (supra para. 165). The workers also had to spend one night in a hotel located in Xinguara, and incurred debts in this regard (supra para. 165). 299. When the workers arrived at Hacienda Brasil Verde they handed over their work permits to the manager, who obliged them to sign blank documents. The State was aware of this practice from previous inspections (supra para. 166).444 In the case of presumed victim Antônio Francisco da Silva, the managers changed the date of birth recorded on his work permit so that it would appear that he was an adult and, thus, could work in the hacienda. 300. The statements obtained from the workers reveal that, on arriving at the hacienda, they realized that nothing that the gato had offered was true (supra para. 166). Their living and working conditions were unhygienic and degrading. The food was insufficient and of poor quality. The water they used came from a small waterfall amid the vegetation, and it was stored in inadequate recipients and shared out in communal bottles (supra para. 167). The working day was exhausting, lasting 12 hours or more every day except Sunday (supra para. 168). 301. All the food they ate was noted down in a notebook and the cost was then deducted from their salaries, which increased their debt to their employer (supra para. 167). In addition, the workers were obliged to work under the orders and threats of the hacienda foremen, who were armed and guarded them permanently (supra para. 171). Consequently, the workers were prevented from leaving the hacienda if they needed to buy something and were obliged to ask the hacienda foremen to make the corresponding purchases, with the respective deduction from their salary (supra para. 172). 302. Owing to the situation in which the workers found themselves, they longed to escape from the hacienda. However, the surveillance to which they were subject, added to the lack of a salary, and the isolated location of the hacienda with the presence of wild animals in the surrounding areas, prevented them from returning home (supra para. 173). The Public Prosecution Service characterized this as a “private prison system” (supra para. 179). 444 Inter alia, Communication PRT 8ª 2357/2001, of June 21, 2001, (evidence file, folios 1031 to 1036). 77