197. Both bodies of the Inter-American system have indicated that which measures of prevention can be required must be determined based on the characteristics and circumstances of each specific case. The Commission finds that in this case, regarding extreme working conditions exerted by private, the obligations to regulate, supervise, and oversee 301 are applicable insofar as the State’s role in areas that affect the fundamental interests of society and the basic rights of individuals. 198. In this sense, although States cannot be held responsible for every time the right to life and humane treatment is violated in a labor context, the State can indeed be internationally responsible for such violations when they have taken place in the absence of proper regulatory, supervisory, and oversight mechanisms. These obligations are reinforced for private actors who conduct particularly hazardous activities. 199. In this case, the Commission has established as proven that the alleged victims suffered accidents while working as divers on different fishing vessels. In this way, the Commission will analyze whether the Honduran State adequately prevented the accidents that occurred against the alleged victims. This is for the purpose of determining the possible international responsibility of Honduras against its obligation to guarantee articles 4.1 and 5.1 of the American Convention. 2. Standards specific to hazardous activities in the labor context 200. Having established the state obligations to respect and ensure the rights to life and humane treatment, in this section the Commission will recapitulate the international standards that are relevant in light of Article 29 of the American Convention, to characterize the scope and content of those treaty obligations related to work and more specifically with respect to hazardous activities that pose a risk to those rights. 201. Specifically, the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, in its General Comment 14, referred to the state obligations related to reducing and preventing labor accidents, in the following terms: Furthermore, States parties are required to formulate, implement and periodically review a coherent national policy to minimize the risk of occupational accidents and diseases, as well as to provide a coherent national policy on occupational safety and health services. … Elements of such a policy are the identification, determination, authorization and control of dangerous materials, equipment, substances, agents and work processes; the provision of health information to workers and the provision, if needed, of adequate protective clothing and equipment; the enforcement of laws and regulations through adequate inspection; ….302 202. As the European Court has held, states’ positive obligations vis-à-vis the rights to life and integrity should be subject to greater scrutiny in cases involving labor situations– whether in public or private See: IACHR. Report No. 102/13. Case 12,723. Merits. TGGL. Ecuador, paras. 141, 142, and 143. Citing. Inter-American Court. Case of Ximenes Lopes. Brazil. Preliminary Objection. Judgment of November 30, 2005. Series C No. 139, para. 99; and ECHR. Case of Storck v. Germany, No. 61603/00. Third Section. Judgment of June 16, 2005, para. 103. In that case, the European Court established that: “the State is under an obligation to secure to its citizens their right to physical integrity under Article 8 of the [European Convention on Human Rights]. For this purpose, there are hospitals run by the State which coexist with private hospitals. The State cannot completely absolve itself of its responsibility by delegating its obligations in this sphere to private bodies or individuals [...] [T]he State remained under a duty to exercise supervision and control over private [...] institutions. Such institutions [...] need not only a licence, but also competent supervision on a regular basis of whether the confinement and medical treatment is justified.” Also see Inter-American Court. Case of the Hacienda Brasil Verde Workers v. Brazil Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of October 20, 2016. Series C No. 318, para. 319. 301See: Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights: Report of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises. Approved by the Human Rights Council by Resolution 17/4 on June 16, 2011. Principle 1. States must protect against human rights abuse within their territory and/or jurisdiction by third parties, including business enterprises. This requires taking appropriate steps to prevent, investigate, punish and redress such abuse through effective policies, legislation, regulations and adjudication. 301 Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. General Comment 14. The right to the highest attainable standard of health. August 11, 2000, para. 36. 302 35