36. In view of the foregoing, the Commission considers that with respect to the alleged victims who had claims before the administrative and judicial mechanisms, it has not been possible to establish the responsibilities and reparations of the situations presented to the authorities, nor guarantee the rights of the alleged victims, thereby causing an unwarranted delay in the processing of their claims. 37. With respect to the situation of the alleged victims who were unable to gain access to domestic remedies, the Commission observes that while Honduran legislation provides for procedures to allege violations of the right to life and humane treatment, as well as procedures for upholding labor rights, including, according to the State, the possibility of free legal assistance, in practice these mechanisms would not be adequate or effective in the department of Gracias a Dios. This is because the procedures do not take into account the particularities of the Miskitu people. In particular, in the instant case the Commission observes that the remedies available to the alleged victims do not consider the special situation of vulnerability of the Miskitu divers and their families, in view of their situation of poverty, disability, geographic isolation, and lack of interpretation into their mother tongue in the various procedures, all of which is alleged to have made it impossible for them to gain access to said remedies. 38. As regards the State’s arguments on this matter (see paragraphs 19 and 20 supra), the Commission observes that the department of Gracias a Dios can only be reached by air or by sea, meaning one must go to La Ceiba or Tegucigalpa, where the high courts are, which entails costly travel, yet travel is only by small aircraft, which don’t have the conditions for carrying the disabled Miskitu divers. In addition, the Commission observes that the measures reported by the State for reducing the incidence of accidents due to decompression syndrome among the population of divers, and those aimed at endowing the department of Gracias a Dios with state employees who can address the labor-related complaints of the Miskitu divers, were allegedly begun in 2004. 39. The Commission also takes into account the information submitted by the petitioners indicating that the presence of the judicial branch in the specific zone where the alleged victims live is scant, and that presenting actions that have to do with the fishing companies may require doing where those companies are registered – normally Roatán or La Ceiba. The petitioners have indicated that the authorities have not succeeded in implementing measures to make these forums accessible for persons with disabilities39, and that they do not have the resources necessary for travelling (by air or by sea being the only possibilities). The information indicates, moreover, that the State presence in the specific area is scant and that the public employees don’t have resources to make the remedies available in the legal system effective. 40. Based on the foregoing, the Commission observes that the exceptions to the requirement of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies, provided for at Article 46(2)(c) and (b) of the American Convention, apply in the instant case, because according to the facts alleged, there has been an unwarranted delay in the decision on the remedies pursued by some of the alleged victims, or because in practice they have not had access to domestic remedies because of the lack of adequate conditions for the disabled Miskitu divers to be able to have access to justice. 39 The petitioners stated that the persons who were able to reach an arrangement with the owner of the boat were at a disadvantage, did so out of necessity, and that this did not represent exhaustion of effective remedies.