rates of poverty, illiteracy, unemployment and chronic malnutrition, among other aspects. 151 Thus, by allowing private companies to operate without adequate control and supervision in an area where a substantial part of the population is vulnerable, the State failed in its obligation to ensure that effective measures were implemented to protect the life and health of divers and to guarantee their right to material equality. 110. In short, the Court finds that the ethnic origin of the victims in this case and the aforementioned intersectional factors of discrimination aggravated the victims’ vulnerability, which: a) facilitated underwater fishing operations without State oversight of the dangerous activity, of the occupational hygiene and safety conditions or of social security; b) led the victims to accept a job that put their lives and personal integrity at risk; c) did not provide them with access to health services for immediate medical care or for rehabilitation treatment. Furthermore, the State did not adopt measures to guarantee material equality in the right to work with respect to a group of people in a situation of exclusion and discrimination. Consequently, the State did not ensure the rights analyzed in this case without discrimination, or the right to equality provided for in Article 24 of the Convention. D. Other arguments 111. In accordance with the friendly settlement agreement reached by the parties, as well as the observations submitted by the representatives (supra para. 8) which expressly refer to the facts and violations alleged by the Commission in the Merits Report, this Court will not rule on the facts related to the remaining alleged violations- such as the right to a decent life, judicial guarantees and judicial protection contained in Articles 4(1), 8(1) and 25(1) of the Convention, and the right to personal integrity of the victims’ next of kin, contained in Article 5(1) of the Convention – in consideration of the content of the parties’ request for the purposes of the friendly settlement of this case. VII. ENDORSEMENT OF THE FRIENDLY SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT 112. As mentioned previously, the terms of the friendly settlement agreement include an acknowledgment by the State of the human rights violations specified by the Inter-American Commission in its Merits Report (supra para. 13). In view of this, the Court considers that the dispute over the facts has ceased. This Court also understands that the dispute has ceased over the arguments related to the violations of the rights to life, to life with dignity, to personal integrity, to the rights of the child, to judicial guarantees, judicial protection, to the right to work in just, equitable and satisfactory conditions, to health, social security, and to the principle of equality and non-discrimination, established in Articles 4(1), 5(1), 8(1), 19, 24, 25(1) and 26 of the American Convention, in relation to the obligations established in Articles 1(1) and 2 of the same instrument, to the detriment of the 42 Miskito divers listed as victims in Annex 1 of this judgment; and on Articles 5(1) (right to personal integrity), of the victims’ next of kin. 113. The Court considers that the State’s acknowledgment of responsibility is a positive contribution to the advancement of these proceedings and to the exercise of the principles underlying the American Convention. The Inter-American Commission has also assessed the agreement reached by the parties, and has considered that the endorsement requested is appropriate (supra para. 17). In this regard, the Court considers that the friendly settlement agreement meets the formal and substantive requirements mentioned above, given that it Cf. World Bank. The Lobster Fishery of the Honduran and Nicaraguan Moskitia. A study of the resource, its sustainable exploitation and the problems of the Miskito divers working in the fishery. September of 1999. 151 38