presume that the disappeared person remains alive until the uncertainty of his fate is brought to an end.517 428. In this case, as background information, the Court noted that on December 21, 1988, the Comissão Pastoral da Terra and the Diocese of Araguaia, together with José Teodoro da Silva, father of lron Canuto da Silva, aged 17, and Miguel Ferreira da Cruz, brother of Luis Ferreira da Cruz, aged 16, filed a report before the Federal Police based on the practice of slave labor in Hacienda Brasil Verde, and also the disappearance of the two adolescents. In this report, they alleged that, in August 1988, lron Canuto da Silva and Luis Ferreira da Cruz had been taken by Manoel Pinto Ferreira, who was a gato known as “Mano,” to work in Hacienda Brasil Verde for 60 days. They also indicated that, according to information they received from the gato “Mano,” in around September of that year, the young men had tried to escape from the hacienda but had been found by the gato and forcibly returned. The gato had threatened to kill the adolescents and even fired some shots with his gun. Lastly, the complainants indicated that they were unaware of the whereabouts of the young men and that this situation had caused their families great concern (supra para. 130). 429. The Court has also verified that, on February 20, 1989, the Federal Police made a visit to Hacienda Brasil Verde. During this visit the workers present identified the gato known as “Mano” and informed the Federal Police that lron Canuto da Silva and Luis Ferreira da Cruz had fled from Hacienda Brasil Verde in the direction of Hacienda Belém (supra paras. 134 and 135). Based on this information, the police did not continue the investigation into the disappearance of Iron Canuto da Silva and Luis Ferreira da Cruz because they considered that they were not disappeared. In this regard, the Court lacks competence to declare a violation of the American Convention because the facts occurred prior to the State’s acceptance of its jurisdiction. Consequently, the Court is unable to rule on possible deficiencies in that investigation. 430. Also, in 2007, during the processing of the case before the Inter-American Commission, the State re-opened the investigation and discovered that Iron Canuto da Silva had been assassinated by an unknown person on July 22, 2007, in circumstances that were unrelated to the facts of this case. In this regard, Raimunda Márcia Azevedo da Silva stated before the Police Delegation of Floresta do Araguaia, Pará, that she had been living in marital union with Iron Canuto da Silva since 1994 and that they had four children who were minors (supra para. 187). In addition, his autopsy report was provided to these proceedings as evidence; the report indicated that Iron Canuto da Silva died as the result of injuries caused by gunshots (supra para. 187). Accordingly, the Court considers that the State re-opened the investigation into the disappearance of Iron Canuto da Silva in 2007 and verified that he had not been a victim of forced disappearance. 431. Meanwhile, with regard to Luis Ferreira da Cruz, the Court notes that, as a result of the re-opening of the investigation in 2007, it was verified that, on February 17, 2009, Maria do Socorro Canuto, foster mother of Luis Ferreira da Cruz, declared before the Secretariat for Justice and Human Rights of the state of Pará that there had been no information on his whereabouts following his flight from Hacienda Brasil Verde (supra para. 188). However, on August 4, 2015, Mrs. Canuto and María Gorete, foster sister of Luis Ferreira da Cruz, informed the Federal Police by telephone that Luis Ferreira da Cruz had died approximately 10 years before in a confrontation with the Military Police in the town of Xinguara. Additionally, María Gorete declared that, when they were informed of the death of Luis Ferreira da Cruz, he had already been given an indigent burial because he was not carrying any personal papers at the time of his death. In this regard, the Federal Police consulted the Xinguara Civil Register Cf. Case of González et al. (“Cotton Field”) v. Mexico. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 16, 2009. Series C No. 205, para. 283, and Case of Velásquez Paiz et al., para. 122. 517 105