300. Third, and in relation to the possibility of obtaining reparation for the deaths and injuries suffered by the victims, the Commission notes that almost all of them filed claims for compensation with the Secretariat of Labor and Social Security or the Office of the Labor Inspector. In this respect, in a case with characteristics similar to those of this case, the European Court highlighted the importance of establishing domestically the real possibility that persons negatively impacted by underwater fishing be able to receive compensation.390 301. In this respect, the IACHR takes note that in most cases the labor authorities limited themselves to calling the victims or their family members and their employers to conciliation hearings. In many cases the employers did not appear, and the authorities did not adopt additional measures; the processes became inactive without any final determination. In other cases, they appeared and amounts of compensation were established, but they were laughable in relation to the seriousness of the facts, and many payments were not made or were made only in part. The Commission observes that in these proceedings the labor authorities did not assume a role of guarantor of the rights of victims, notwithstanding their clear disadvantage in the context of these processes. To the contrary, many victims accepted settlements that clearly reflected their basic needs and vulnerable situation. Based on a complete reading of the documentation in these administrative proceedings, the Commission considers that the victims were totally defenseless under the passive eye of the labor authorities, whose job it is to protect them. 302. Fourth, and beyond these administrative proceedings, which turned out to be ineffective for the reasons given, the Commission notes what was argued by the petitioner regarding the difficulties of physical access for filing judicial actions to obtain reparation. In response to these arguments, which are corroborated by the determinations of context, the State has not succeeded in showing how the victims in the instant case had any real possibility of pursuing their claims judicially. Moreover, in the few instances in which cases were presented in the judiciary, it turned out to be ineffective for securing integral reparation. The IACHR must emphasize that these obstacles to accessibility to justice place a disproportional burden on persons in poverty and with disabilities; accordingly, it wishes to emphasize that accessibility is a condition precedent for persons with disabilities to be able to live independently and participate fully in society; without access to the physical environment, transportation, information, and other substantial services, it will be difficult for them to see their rights guaranteed. In that context, if the buildings in which the law enforcement agencies and administration of justice are situated are not physically accessible for this group in a situation of vulnerability, there cannot be real access to justice. 303. In view of all the foregoing considerations, the Commission considers that the Honduran State is responsible for violating the right to a fair trial and to judicial protection established at articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of the same instrument, to the detriment of the surviving victims and of the family members individually identified in the Single Annex to this report on the merits. Moreover, the Commission considers that the foregoing conclusions reveal a structural problem of a lack of administrative, judicial, and other mechanisms to respond adequately and effectively to the violations found in this report. In that sense, the Commission also considers that the State is responsible for violating Article 2 of the American Convention. E. Right to humane treatment for the victims’ family members (Article 5 of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of the same instrument) 304. Article 5(1) of the American Convention establishes: “Every person has the right to have his physical, mental, and moral integrity respected.” With respect to the family members of victims of certain human rights violations, the Court has indicated that they may be considered, in turn, as victims.391 In this respect, the Court has ruled that that they may be affected in their psychological and moral integrity as a result ECHR, Case of Vilnes and others v. Norway. Judgment of March 24, 2014, para. 231. I/A Court HR. Case of Cantoral Huamaní and García Santa Cruz v. Peru. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 10, 2007. Series C No. 167. para. 112; and Case of Bueno Alves v. Argentina. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 11, 2007. Series C. No. 164, para. 102. 390 391 55