A/HRC/8/4 page 10 out their task.14 Access to justice requires the establishment of a judicial system that guarantees rights, and of parallel measures such as mechanisms and programmes to facilitate free legal assistance, in both criminal and civil cases.15 This positive aspect of the State’s obligations, likewise firmly established in both the European16 and the inter-American systems,17 must be considered in relation to socio-economic factors and others such as age, sexual orientation, and people’s physical and psychological condition, which have a major bearing on effective access to justice. C. Barriers to access to justice 1. Financial barriers 24. Financial factors usually have a huge impact on access to justice. In structural terms, they are reflected in scarcity of funds allocated to ministries of justice; lack of training for those working in the justice system; buildings in poor repair; delays in proceedings; outdated equipment for expert appraisals and technical analyses; inadequacy of funds to ensure free legal aid; and so forth. These are issues that directly or indirectly affect access to justice, and the Special Rapporteur makes a point of raising them in his country visits. 25. At the individual level, court proceedings can represent a heavy financial burden. Costs include initiating and pursuing the proceedings, and possible delays. In addition there are lawyers’ fees and other costs such as travel and loss of working time as a result of a court case. Various studies show that costs can be as high as 30, 50 or even 60 per cent of the value of property disputes where the amounts claimed are low.18 They have a proportionally greater effect on low-income social sectors, and the impossibility of paying for legal aid or meeting the costs associated with a case has come to be seen in case law and doctrine as constituting real 14 Esta dimensión negativa es la que aborda más específicamente la legislación británica. Vid., M. Penfold Schoenborn, “The Access to justice Bill and Human Rights Act of 1998: Britain’s legislative overhaul leaves the system scrambling to mend the safety net”, Buffalo Human Rights Law Review, vol. 6, p. 201. 15 Vid. TEDH, Airey c/Irlanda, Sentencia del 9 de octubre de 1979. 16 Del razonamiento del Tribunal en ese asunto se deduce que el Estado no sólo tiene la obligación de abstenerse de interferir el ejercicio del derecho al acceso a la justicia, sino también la obligación de adoptar acciones positivas y remover los obstáculos materiales que impiden su ejercicio efectivo. TEDH, Airey c/Irlanda, Sentencia del 9 de octubre de 1979. 17 Corte Interamericana de derecho Humanos, Opinión Consultiva OC-11/90, del 10 de agosto de 1998. Excepciones al agotamiento de los recursos internos; Corte Interamericana de derecho Humanos, Caso Fairen Garben y Solis Corrales, ST de 15 de marzo de 1989, Serie C, núm. 6, párr. 93. 18 A.M. Garro, “Acceso a la justicia y el ‘derecho de interés público’”, Revista Justicia y Sociedad, vol. 2, 1999, p. 50.