appropriate means of redress to aggrieved individuals or groups and ensure corporate accountability,”387 to which end it is essential that effective and prompt remedies are available, as well as access to relevant information that makes it possible to resolve a complaint.388 294. The Court has defined impunity as “the total lack of investigation, prosecution, capture, trial and conviction of those responsible for violations of the rights protected by the American Convention, in view of the fact that the State has the obligation to use all the legal means at its disposal to combat that situation, since impunity fosters chronic recidivism of human rights violations, and total defenselessness of victims and their relatives.”389 295. As has been established throughout this report on the merits, the instant case involves multiple violations of rights established in the Convention as the result of the victims being subjected to disappearance, death, and permanent injuries. These violations occurred in the context of underwater fishing by companies in the region in abusive conditions taking advantage of the extreme vulnerability of the victims stemming from multiple factors, including their situation of poverty. This happened with the knowledge of the State and without it adopting the measures needed to supervise and oversee those activities, or measures to punish those responsible and facilitate access to reparation for the victims. 296. Accordingly, the analysis as to whether the State abided by the rights to a fair trial and to judicial protection in relation to the victims and their family members should be conducted considering the nature of the many violations found in this report on the merits, which give rise to various obligations in respect of access to justice. 297. First, the Commission already established that the facts of the instant case fit within a structural problem of human rights violations against divers by fishing companies in the region, such as forms of debt servitude and forced labor. It appears, from the section on context – and the State has not denied it – that the State was aware of this problem which, as indicated, goes back many years. These practices constitute serious human rights violations which, as such, should be investigated by the State on its own initiative. Even so, it does not appear that the Honduran State has initiated any investigation. 298. The Commission emphasizes that after the various claims were filed for compensation due to the accidents suffered by the victims, the State once again took cognizance of the situation described above. This was due to the fact that in many cases those claims contained a description of their working conditions. Nonetheless, despite the seriousness of the information contained in those claims, as well as their reiterative nature, the State has not activated any mechanism for a criminal, administrative, or other investigation to clarify the facts, identify and punish the persons responsible, make a serious assessment of their characteristics, or design an integral and effective response. 299. Second, the Commission observes that in relation to all the accidents described in paragraphs 54 to 183 of this report, the State did not initiate investigations to clarify the circumstance of those accidents as well as the possible criminal or other liabilities that could stem from them, even though the accidents took the lives of some victims and caused others permanent physical injury. The Commission notes in that in relation to (i) the fire that caused the death of Hildo Ambrosio and the disappearance of Andres Miranda Clemente, Lorenzo Leman Bonaparte, Bernardo Julián Trino, José Trino Pérez, Rómulo Flores Henríquez, and Amilton Bonaparte Clemente, and (ii) the disappearance of the child Licar Méndez, that despite having learned of these serious incidents, the State did not initiate an investigation to clarify the circumstances of the death and the disappearances, determine possible liabilities in relation to them, and locate the whereabouts of the persons disappeared. Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. General Comment 24. On State obligations in the context of business activities. August 10, 2017. para. 39. See also: United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. Access to remedy (principle 25) (2011). Available at: http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/GuidingPrinciplesBusinessHR_SP.pdf 388 Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. General Comment 24. On State obligations in the context of business activities. August 10, 2017. paras. 41 and 45. 389 I/A Court HR., Case of Ivcher Bronstein. Judgment of February 6, 2001. Series C No. 74, para. 186; I/A Court HR., Case of the Constitutional Court. Judgment of January 31, 2001. Series C No. 71, para. 123; I/A Court HR, Case of Bámaca Velásquez. Judgment of November 25, 2000. Series C No. 70, para. 211. 387 54