persons under its jurisdiction. 54 The Court has also recognized that the violation of this right has different connotations of degree, and that the physical and mental effects of its presumed violation vary in intensity based on endogenous and exogenous factors that must be proved in each specific case. 55 55. In fulfilment of its obligation to ensure the rights to life and personal integrity, this Court has considered that States have a duty to regulate, supervise and monitor the implementation of dangerous activities that entail significant risks for the life and integrity of persons under their jurisdiction 56 (supra paras. 43 to 46). 56. In the instant case, the Court first notes that, since 2001, Honduras has had specific health and safety regulations for divers. These “establish the rules governing the application of Title V and other provisions contained in the Labor Code on the protection of workers’ health from the risks arising from the working conditions of underwater fishing.” 57 The Occupational Safety and Health Regulations for Underwater Fishing recognize “the seriousness of the occupational risks encountered in underwater fishing activities.” 58 These regulations aim to “protect the health of workers from the risks arising from the working conditions of underwater fishing,” and establish that the Ministry of Labor and Social Security is responsible for inspecting the occupational safety of fishing vessels and evaluating occupational risks in this industry. 59 They also establish a series of obligations for employers with regard to ensuring the health and safety of workers. 60 57. In this sense, the Court considers that the Fishing Regulations provide an adequate regulatory framework that establishes basic requirements for employers to ensure that this activity complies with minimum safety standards for divers, and that the vessels used have proper safety and hygiene conditions. The Court also notes that several of the diving accidents that affected the victims in the case occurred during the period when there were no such regulations, and therefore workers were covered by the provisions of Title V of the Honduran Labor Code regarding the protection of workers during the performance of their work. 61 Therefore, the Court considers that there was no regulatory problem in the present case. Nevertheless, as acknowledged by the State, there is no information to demonstrate that such regulations have been effectively implemented by the competent authorities to ensure the safety of dive fishing in La Mosquitia. 62 58. Second, and in relation to the foregoing, the Court notes that the State failed to implement inspection or oversight measures to ensure that the boats carrying the divers who suffered diving accidents, as well as the “Lancaster” boat which transported the divers who Cf. Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez v. Honduras. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 7, 2003. Series C No. 99, para. 110, and Case of the Workers of the Fireworks Factory in Santo Antônio de Jesus v. Brazil, supra, para. 116. 54 Cf. Case of Loayza Tamayo v. Peru. Merits. Judgment of September 17, 1997. Series C No. 33, para. 57, and Case of the Workers of the Fireworks Factory in Santo Antônio de Jesus v. Brazil, supra, para. 116. 55 56 Cf. Case of the Workers of the Fireworks Factory in Santo Antônio de Jesus v. Brazil, supra, para. 118. Secretariat of Labor and Social Security. Occupational Health and Safety Regulations for Underwater Fishing, May 30, 2001, Article 1. 57 58 Occupational Health and Safety Regulations for Underwater Fishing, supra, considering paragraphs. 59 Cf. Occupational Health and Safety Regulations for Underwater Fishing, supra, Article 2. 60 Cf. Occupational Health and Safety Regulations for Underwater Fishing, supra, Articles 5 and 6. 61 Cf. Labor Code and Reforms, 1959, Title V. 62 Cf. Merits Report (evidence file, folio 61). 20