a judgment in his favor, on October 22, 1996, which has yet to be enforced. In all these cases, they argue that the State breached its duty to give impetus to administrative and judicial proceedings on its own initiative. They argue that the ineffectiveness of the actions of the administrative authorities has been determinant in the divers’ claims not having got past the phase prior to the judicial phase12 and in the judicial phase the judicial authorities have maintained a passive attitude and have not taken any initiative to effectively conclude the proceedings13, which together with the concealment, failure to appear in court, and filing of dilatory motions by the respondents, has contributed to not a single judicial judgment in favor of the divers being enforced 14, as a result of which they become victims of delays in the justice system. They add that during the proceedings they do not have interpretation into their mother tongue. 14. Furthermore, the petitioners allege that most of the divers or their family members have been impeded from acceding to domestic remedies, whether administrative or judicial, due to the conditions of extreme poverty in which they live, low levels of education, lack of information, the geographic location of the Mosquitia, and the high costs of the proceeding, which requires travelling to where the administrative or judicial mechanisms are 12 In the administrative proceeding at the offices of the Ministry of Labor, the various victims have suffered different situations. In some cases, for example, the grievance is merely received; in other cases the employers are convened to no avail; and in another case, although a preliminary agreement was reached, it was not enforced. In none of these cases was a decision issued that expressly exhausted administrative remedies, allowing the victims to have recourse to judicial remedies. 13 As an example they cite the case of Mr. Amisterio Vans Valeriano, who filed a labor grievance in 2001, before the Juzgado de Letras (Court) of La Ceiba. Although the respondent answered the complaint, the Court did not convene the conciliation hearing or the hearing for receiving evidence; more than seven years have elapsed without the Court taking any steps to conclude the proceeding. They also cite the case of Mr. Ex Dereck Claros, who filed a labor grievance in 1997; his claim was admitted seven months later, and the respondent was ordered to appear, with no results to date. Mr. Ralph Valderramos filed a claim in 1997 before the Juzgado de Letras of Puerto Lempira; it was admitted, and the respondent was summonsed but did not appear, and the Court did not continue the proceeding. Mr. Lemus filed his claim in 2004, seeking attachment of accounts. There has been no judicial response to any of these initiatives. They note that more than 10 years have elapsed in the first case, and four years in the second example, without the courts having responded to the victims’ requests. In the cases of victims José Martínez López and Opario Lemoth Morris, who died as a result of an occupational accident, though their deaths were reported to the Justice of the Peace of Brus Laguna and to the Juzgado de Letras of Puerto Lempira, respectively, neither of these courts initiated any investigation into their deaths. To date the truth of what happened is not known, nor have those responsible been sanctioned or made reparation for the harm caused. Petitioners’ brief of July 7, 2008, p.19. 14 According to the Pan American Health Organization, there are 4,000 to 6,000 disabled divers, 99% of them have not received fair compensation. This figure increases by 350 to 400 new cases each fishing season. Brief attached to the petitioners’ brief of November 5, 2004, Annex No. 40.