328. Even though the State was fully aware of the danger faced by the workers subjected to slavery or forced labor in the state of Pará456 and specifically in Hacienda Brasil Verde,457 it has not proved that, prior to March 2000, it had adopted effective measures to prevent this practice and subjection of human beings to the degrading and inhumane conditions that have been identified. Although the obligation of prevention is one of means and not of results, the State has not demonstrated that the public policies adopted between 1995 and 2000 and the previous inspections conducted by Ministry of Labor officials, even though they were necessary and reveal a commitment by the State, were sufficient and effective to prevent the subjection of 85 workers to slavery in Hacienda Brasil Verde (first example of the need to comply with the obligation of prevention). In addition, when it received the report of violence and subjection to a situation of slavery, the State failed to react with the due diligence required by the seriousness of the facts, the victims’ situation of vulnerability, and its international obligation to prevent slavery (second example of the need to comply with the obligation of prevention following the two reports filed). B.11. The rights of the child 329. From the facts recounted to the March 2000 inspection, it can be observed that Antônio Francisco da Silva, who escaped from the hacienda and, after an enormous effort, was able to report the existence of a situation of slavery, threats and violence in Hacienda Brasil Verde, was a minor at that time (supra paras. 174, 175 and 299). Antônio Francisco da Silva testified before the Court that he had reported this fact to both the Federal Police and the Comissão Pastoral da Terra . 330. The Court underscores that children are holders of the rights established in the American Convention, in addition to being guaranteed the special measures of protection established in Article 19 of the Convention, to be defined in keeping with the particular circumstances of each specific case.458 Article 19 of the Convention establishes the obligation to adopt special measures of protection in favor of all children based on their condition as such, and this has an impact on the interpretation of all the other rights when a case relates to children. Accordingly, the Court has considered that the protection due to the rights of the child, as subjects of law, must take into consideration their intrinsic characteristics and the need to foster their development, offering them the necessary conditions to live and develop their aptitudes taking full advantage of their potential.459 When examining the rights of the child, the Court will have recourse to the international corpus iuris for the protection of children, as it has on previous occasions,460 to define the content and scope of the obligations assumed by the State. See, inter alia, Statement by the President of the Republic, Fernando Henrique Cardoso, of June 27, 1995 (evidence file, folio 7108). 456 See, communication No. 2,357/2001 of the Head Prosecutor of the Eighth Regional Labor Prosecution Service of June 21, 2001 (evidence file, folios 1031 to 1036). 457 Case of Gelman v. Uruguay. Merits and reparations. Judgment of February 24, 2011. Series C No. 221, para. 121, and Case of Expelled Dominicans and Haitians v. Dominican Republic. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 28, 2014. Series C No. 282, para. 269. 458 Cf. Juridical Status and Human Rights of the Child. Advisory Opinion OC-17/02 of August 28, 2002. Series A No. 17, para. 61; Rights and Guarantees of Children in the Context of Migration and/or in Need of International Protection. Advisory Opinion OC-21/14 of August 19, 2014. Series A No. 21, para. 66, and Case of Rochac Hernández, para. 106. 459 Cf. Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Merits, para. 194, and Case of Rochac Hernández et al., para. 106. 460 84