reparations were granted, and this had an impact on the said workers who received no compensation of any type for the conditions in which they had been kept in Hacienda Brasil Verde. 382. Having analyzed the four elements to determine the reasonableness of the duration of the criminal proceedings, and bearing in mind that there was an obligation to act with particular due diligence considering the situation of the Hacienda Brasil Verde workers and the extreme seriousness of the facts denounced, the Court concludes that the State violated the judicial guarantee of a reasonable time established in Article 8(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights, in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument, to the detriment of the 43 Hacienda Brasil Verde workers who were found during the April 23, 1997, inspection and who have been identified by the Court in this judgment (supra para. 199). B.3. Absence of effective judicial protection 383. The Court will now analyze the alleged violación of the right to judicial protection. To this end, the Court will evaluate: (i) whether the proceedings opened in 1997, 2000 and 2001 were effective remedies to investigate and punish those responsible for the facts verified in Hacienda Brasil Verde, and whether an effective remedy existed to make reparation to the presumed victims; (ii) the prescription of the proceedings and its compatibility with the obligations derived from international law, and (iii) the alleged discrimination in relation to the presumed victims’ access to judicial protection. 384. In this case, the Court notes that in 1997, 2000 and 2001, two criminal actions, one civil action and one labor proceeding were instituted in relation to the situation of the Hacienda Brasil Verde workers. The Court will now examine these proceedings to determine whether the State guaranteed the victims the judicial protection established in Article 25(1) of the Convention. To this end, it will summarize the actions verified in each proceeding. 385. The Court recalls that, as a result of the Ministry of Labor’s report, on June 30, 1997, the Federal Public Prosecution Service filed a criminal complaint against Raimundo Alves de Rocha, Antônio Alves Vieira and João Luiz Quagliato Neto. On July 10, 2008, the Pará federal judge declared that the statute of limitations would not apply only if they were sentenced to the maximum penalty and, therefore, that the prescription of the action was inevitable. On this basis, as well as on the State’s lack of action, the judge decided to declare that the criminal action had extinguished (supra para. 157). 386. Regarding the labor proceeding, the Court recalls that on August 12, 1997, an administrative proceeding was opened by the Eighth Region’s Regional Labor Public Prosecutor (PRT). On November 14, 1997, with regard to Hacienda Brasil Verde, the Pará Regional Labor Delegation advised that even though some deficiencies existed, it had “prefer[red] not to act, but rather to provide advice […]” (supra para. 159). On October 13, 1998, the Labor Public Prosecutor asked the Pará Regional Labor Delegation to conduct another inspection of the hacienda, owing to the time that had elapsed since the last one. On February 8, 1999, the Pará Regional Labor Delegation advised that it had not conducted the inspection owing to lack of financial resources. On June 15, 1999, the Labor Public Prosecutor repeated his request. 387. 2000, Verde 2000, Verde In the case of the public civil action filed in 2000, the Court recalls that, in March Antônio Francisco da Silva and Gonçalo Luiz Furtado escaped from Hacienda Brasil and went to the Federal Police in Marabá (supra paras. 174 and 175). On March 15, the Pará Regional Labor Delegation carried out a new inspection at Hacienda Brasil with the presence of the Federal Police (supra para. 177). On May 30, 2000, based on 96