occasions, its willingness to start friendly settlement proceedings. The petitioners indicated that they did not wish to engage in this type of proceedings, and its last communication was dated March 23, 2018. III. POSITION OF THE PARTIES A. Petitioners 7. They alleged many rights violations to the detriment of 42 divers of the Miskito indigenous people and their relatives who live in the department of Gracias a Dios. They pointed out that these violations took place in a context where private enterprises were hiring these persons to carry out underwater fishing activities and that they subjected them to labor exploitation, to which they were vulnerable because of the poverty and exclusion prevailing in the area. 8. They specified that this labor exploitation was based on the pathetic wages they were paid and deplorable working conditions, leading to the death of several divers and physical impacts which became disabilities for others. Among the conditions alleged by the petitioners, the following are noteworthy: i) the absence of supervision over the diving equipment; ii) abusive treatment by ship captains who required them to dive more than 40 meters deep into the sea; iii) accidents under the effects of drugs, which were permitted and facilitated by ship captains; iv) absence of training; v) failure to provide first aid services when accidents occurred; vi) absence of logistics for the immediate transfer of the person involved in the accident; vii) failure to abide by basic diving safety standards (such as diving with a partner, ongoing access to a vessel equipped with emergency and evaluation systems); and ix) absence of an ambulance with a decompression chamber. 9. According to the petitioners, the State was aware of this situation many years ago and, in spite of that, it refrained from duly supervising and inspecting the activities of the companies working in the area and, specifically, from examining their labor ties with the alleged victims. They added that, although deaths and physical disabilities were reported in the context of this exploitation, the State did not provide any effective response. The context, the facts of the present case, and the proceedings under domestic law are specified in detail in the section entitled “Facts alleged.” The petitioners’ principal arguments of law are summarized below. 10. In connection with the right to life, they alleged that the death of 24 Miskito divers can be imputed directly to the State because it did not adopt the necessary measures for their protection by supervising and inspecting their labor ties and, in some cases, by providing an immediate response to the respective accidents. Likewise, they pointed out that Honduras violated the right to a decent life of the surviving Miskito divers who have remained with physical disabilities and have not received any response for their rehabilitation and empowerment. 11. Regarding the right to physical integrity, along the same line as above, they argued that the State violated this right because it had not taken the prevention measures needed to prevent the accidents that led to the physical disabilities of the divers who survived the accidents. In addition, they contended that there was no adequate treatment for their health. In particular, they stressed that they did not benefit from any medical assistance on the fishing vessels nor did they receive any timely treatment in the decompression chamber. They indicated that they had to wait a week and that the treatment was not free of charge. 12. As for the rights of the child, they stated that this right was violated when the child Licar Méndez Gutiérrez disappeared. They reported that the child Méndez worked as a cayuco [diver’s oxygen tank assistant working from a canoe] and disappeared allegedly because he had been abandoned as a punishment meted out by the captain of the fishing vessel where he was working. They added that no investigation of the case was duly conducted. 13. Regarding the prohibition of slavery and servitude, in the stage of the merits, the petitioners alleged that the work carried out by the Miskito divers can be viewed as forced labor because it meets the two requirements enshrined in international standards. In particular, they stressed that: i) fishing by diving is the only work that the Miskitos living in the area can do; and ii) they work under conditions that fail completely to provide for their safety under an oppressive system. 2