16. The petitioners indicate that the victims and their next-of-kin have not received justice or compensation. For this reason, they argue that the State is responsible for violating the following rights: a. The right to judicial guarantees (Article 8) with respect to the alleged victims, because they brought administrative and judicial actions without any result, and suffered an unwarranted delay in the processing of their actions. b. The right to protection of the family (Article 17(1)) of the alleged victims due to the human tragedy that affects the disabled divers, who receive no fair compensation, no social security, without any possibility of rehabilitation, and without any prospects of leading a dignified life, as it is the family must bear the burden of the human drama that has affected their disappeared or disabled loved ones. c. Rights of the child (Article 19), with respect to Licar Méndez Gutiérrez, who was subjected to extenuating working conditions contrary to his condition as a minor, and who, having disappeared, is presumed dead.19 d. The rights to equality before the law, judicial protection, and economic, social and cultural rights (Articles 24, 25 and 26), with respect to the Miskitu people and their members dedicated to underwater fishing, as they do not have the protection of the law and public policies on labor supervision in compliance with statutory and regulatory provisions so as to prevent workplace accidents. They invoke Article 26 of the Convention in relation to Article 45 of the Charter of the Organization of American States, at sections (a), (h), and (i), which make reference to the protection of work, the development of an efficient social security policy, and adequate provision for all persons to have due legal aid in order to secure their rights. All the rights indicated above are alleged to have been violated in conjunction with Articles 1(1) and 2 of the American Convention. B. The State 17. The State indicates that the situation raised in the petition as grave and systematic violations, characterized by the petitioners as a “human tragedy,” is not unknown to the State, and is a matter of concern. In this respect, it indicates that it has social security, health, and labor policies for the population engaged in underwater fishing, which are established in the Constitution of the Republic, the Labor Code, and the Regulation on Occupational Health and Safety for Underwater Fishing .20 Nonetheless, it affirms that the nature of the activity performed by the Miskitu divers “as well as the cultural aspects particular to their people, have made more complex the effective application of the provisions that regulate the occupational safety and health conditions of those who work in fishing so as to prevent accidents.”21 18. The State notes the administrative and judicial procedures that the petitioners must follow to pursue their claims, according to what is established in the Labor Code. It states that in the administrative forum one must go before the Secretariat for Labor and Social Security (Secretaría del Trabajo y Previsión Social) and that in the judicial forum, a labor action must be filed before the respective Labor Court (Juzgado de Trabajo). In the event that the workers do not have resources for hiring the services of an attorney they may 19 See paragraph 15.a and footnote, p. 18. 20 State’s brief of observations, February 23, 2005, p. 8. 21 State’s brief of observations, February 23, 2005, p. 9.