covered in the section on findings of facts, the IACHR does not have the elements available to determine whether there was a failure to meet an obligation of due diligence. 68. Nevertheless, the Commission observes that given the total absence of grounds for the verdict and acquittal, it is not possible to establish whether the proceedings as well as the final determination aimed to establish whether the use of lethal force was legitimate by the standards of legitimate purpose, necessity, and proportionality examined above. To the contrary, it is clear from the conclusions established in the prior section that the individuals in the van did not pose a risk to the lives of the police officers or others. Given the absence of grounds for the verdict, the Commission rightly infers that such fundamental valuations under international standards on use of force were not considered in determining the defendants’ criminal responsibility. In this case, it is reasonable to conclude that the verdict that rejected the defendants’ guilt could not have been predicted by the victims, as it showed no correlation with the events in question, the elements of proof in the accusation, and the evidence received in the domestic proceedings.83 69. Thus, the absence of grounds for the verdict not only implied that the State failed to offer a satisfactory explanation regarding the use of lethal force, as it should have, but that this also constituted a source of denial of justice for Patricio Roche Azaña and his mother and father. 70. In terms of the victims and their next of kin being sufficiently and adequately heard in a criminal proceeding related to human rights violations, the Commission observes that Nicaraguan legislation itself established that it was impossible to appeal the Jury Court verdict, and therefore the proceeding did not offer sufficient guarantees to scrutinize the decision and ensure that it was not arbitrary and did not violate those individuals’ right to a fair trial and to judicial protection. 71. Along similar lines, with respect to the right to a hearing, while it is true that it was not possible to take Mr. Patricio Roche Azaña’s statement during the 10 days established in Nicaraguan law, due to his medical condition, it is also true that there were still possibilities for him to participate in the proceedings later on, a situation that was not taken into account by the courts. To the contrary, he was never notified that a proceeding existed, how he could participate, and the repercussions this could have for him, even though he had been able to emerge from his coma and it would have been possible for him to participate in the case. 72. In this regard, it is worth considering that migrants are at considerable disadvantage in terms of defending their rights due to various barriers to access to justice, among them the lack of knowledge about the laws and judicial system of the country they find themselves in. Therefore, the right to information in that respect has special value because of the weight it can have in migrants’ access to justice. The Nicaraguan State did not notify Mr. Roche Azaña at any time about his right to participate during the proceedings. This situation affected his right and that of his mother and father to a hearing with due guarantees and their right to be kept informed of the progress and results of the case. 73. Consequently, the Commission considers that the State violated the rights to a fair trial and to judicial protection established in Articles 8.1 and 25 of the American Convention, in connection with the obligations established in Article 1.1 thereof, to the detriment of Patricio Roche Azaña and his mother and father. The Commission also considers that the State violated the right to humane treatment established in Article 5.1 of the American Convention, in connection with the obligations established in Article 1.1 thereof, to the detriment of the mother and father of the Roche Azaña brothers. V. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 74. Based on the determinations of fact and law, the Inter-American Commission concluded that the State is responsible for violating Articles 4.1 (right to life), 5.1 (right to humane treatment), 8.1 (right to a fair trial), and 25.1 (judicial protection) of the American Convention, in connection with the obligations established in Articles 1.1 and 2 thereof, to the detriment of those individuals indicated throughout this report. 83 I/A Court H.R. Case of V.R.P., V.P.C. et al. v. Nicaragua, March 8, 2018, para. 269.