Court held in the case of Vilnes and others v. Norway that it is possible to identify a direct relationship between the lack of care for divers with decompression syndrome and the continued deterioration of their health.326 235. The IACHR takes note of the victims’ recent statements regarding the State’s failure to provide them with medical care. They added that due to their situation of poverty and the lack of health centers, in many cases they simply cannot afford or access such care or the medications they need. 236. In view of the foregoing considerations, the Commission concludes that the State has not provided adequate and timely medical care to the group of surviving victims, including Messrs. Lemus, Cooper, Castellano, and Dereck Claro resulting in the gradual deterioration of their health. In this regard, the IACHR concludes that Honduras violated the right to humane treatment protected by Article 5 of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of the same instrument, to the detriment of the 22 Miskito workers. Notwithstanding the close interdependence and indivisibility of the right to humane treatment and the right to health, below the IACHR will analyze how these same facts relate to the obligations of the State with respect to the right to health under Article 26 of the Convention. 237. Without prejudice to the foregoing, the Commission considers that it does not have sufficient information to determine whether the deaths of Timoteo Lemus, Onasis Cooper, Carlos Castellano, and Ex Dereck Claro, that occurred years after their respective accidents, resulted from the lack of medical care provided by the State. Accordingly, the IACHR will not decide, in this section, the possible violation of the right to life to their detriment. C. Rights to work and to just and satisfactory conditions, social security, health, and the principle of equality and non-discrimination (Articles 24327 and 26328 of the American Convention, in relation to articles 1(1) and 2 of the same instrument) 1. General considerations 238. Article 26 of the Convention establishes the obligation that any measures adopted in the area of the economic, social, and cultural rights covered in that provision tend toward their progressive development. Although both organs of the inter-American system 329 have asserted their competence to pronounce on possible violations of Article 26 of the American Convention within the context of the system of individual cases and petitions, that provision has been little developed in the case law of the inter-American system in relation to contentious cases. In its findings in such matters, the Court has emphasized the interdependence and indivisibility that exists between economic, social, and cultural rights and civil and political rights.330 239. The Commission recognizes that there may be certain complexities to interpreting Article 26 of the Convention and precisely determining its scope and content. Accordingly, the Commission considers it necessary to elaborate on some of its previous statements in that regard, specifically with respect to what it ECHR, Case of Vilnes and others v. Norway. Judgment of March 24, 2014, para. 233. Article 24 of the American Convention: All persons are equal before the law. Consequently, they are entitled, without discrimination, to equal protection of the law. 328 Article 26 of the American Convention: The States Parties undertake to adopt measures, both internally and through international cooperation, especially those of an economic and technical nature, with a view to achieving progressively, by legislation or other appropriate means, the full realization of the rights implicit in the economic, social, educational, scientific, and cultural standards set forth in the Charter of the Organization of American States as amended by the Protocol of Buenos Aires. 329 See, for example, a number of admissibility reports in which the possible violation of Article 26 of the American Convention has been accepted: Report 29/01, Case 12.249, Jorge Odir Miranda Cortez et al., El Salvador, March 7, 2001; and Report 70/04, Petition 667/01, Admissibility, Jesús Manuel Naranjo Cárdenas et al. (Pensioners of the Venezuelan Aviation Company - Viasa), Venezuela, October 13, 2004. See also the core finding on Article 26 Report 38/09, Case 12.670, National Association of Ex-Employees of the Peruvian Social Security Institute et al., Peru, March 27, 2009. Likewise, the Court reaffirmed that competence in the case of Acevedo Buendía et al. (“Discharged and Retired Employees of the Offcie of the Comptroller”) v. Peru, Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Judgment of July 1, 2009. 330 See, for example, I/A Court H.R., Case of Lagos del Campo v. Peru, Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of August 31, 2017, Series C No. 340, par. 141; and Case of Acevedo Buendía et al. (“Discharged and Retired Employees of the Office of the Comptroller”) v. Peru, Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Judgment of July 1, 2009. par. 101. 326 327 41