338. The Court finds that the State incurs international responsibility when, faced with the existence of structural discrimination, it fails to adopt specific measures with regard to the particular situation of victimization that reveals the vulnerability of a universe of individualized persons. It is the victimization of such persons that exposes their particular vulnerability, and this calls for specific protective actions that were omitted in the case of the individuals recruited to work in Hacienda Brasil Verde. 339. In this case, the Court notes some characteristics of specific victimization shared by the 85 workers rescued on March 15, 2000: they were poor; they came from the poorest regions of the country, with the lowest human development and possibilities of work and employment, and they were illiterate with little or no schooling (supra para. 41). This placed them in a situation that made them more susceptible to recruitment by means of false promises and deception. This situation of imminent risk for a specific group of people with identical characteristics, from the same regions of the country, had historical roots and had been known since, at least, 1995 when the Brazilian Government expressly acknowledged the existence of “slave labor” in the country (supra para. 111). 340. The evidence provided to the case file reveals the existence of a situation that characterized discriminatory treatment based on the economic status of the victims rescued on March 15, 2000. According to several reports of the ILO and of the Brazilian Ministry of Labor, “it is the worker’s miserable situation that leads him, spontaneously, to accept the working conditions that are offered,”475 and “the worse the living conditions, the more willing workers are to take the risks inherent in accepting work far from home. […] Poverty, therefore, is the main factor behind modern-day slavery in Brazil, since it increases the vulnerability of a significant portion of the population, making them easy prey for enticers of slave labor.”476 341. Having verified this situation, the Court finds that the State failed to take into account the vulnerability of the 85 workers rescued on March 15, 2000, owing to discrimination based on their economic status. This constitutes a violation of Article 6(1) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument, to their detriment. B.13. Conclusion 342. Based on all the foregoing, Brazil has not proved that it had taken, with regard to this case and at the time of the facts, the specific measures – in accordance with the circumstances of which it was aware of workers in a situation of slavery and of specific complaints against Hacienda Brasil Verde – to prevent the occurrence of the violation of Article 6(1) verified in this case. The State failed to act promptly in the initial hours and days following the report of slavery and violence filed by Gonçalo Luiz Furtado and Antônio Francisco da Silva, at great personal sacrifice and risk, losing valuable hours and days. Over conditions of extreme poverty, at-risk children and adolescents, and indigenous peoples, face an increased risk of suffering from mental disabilities […]. The connection that exists between disability, on the one hand, and poverty and social exclusion, on the other, is direct and significant. Consequently, among the positive measures that the State should take are those required to prevent all preventable forms of disability and provide those who suffer from mental disabilities with the appropriate preferential treatment.” Case of Ximenes Lopes v. Brazil. Judgment of July 4, 2006. Series C No. 149, para. 104. In the case of Xákmok Kásek the Court considered that “extreme poverty and lack of adequate medical care for pregnant and post-partum women are the causes of high maternal mortality and morbidity.” Case of the Xákmok Kásek Indigenous Community v. Paraguay. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 24, 2010. Series C No. 214, para. 233. Ministry of Labor and Employment. Manual to combat work in conditions similar to those of slavery. November 2011, p. 13 (evidence file, folio 6714). 475 476 ILO – Brazil. Fighting forced labour: the example of Brazil, 2010, p. 34 (evidence file, folio 8529). 87