that although the State acknowledges that more than one hundred thousand (100,000) persons were victims, it did not produce a complete list of victims as it did not submit on the merits in relation to the allegations under consideration. 160. Furthermore, the information on record indicates that although remediation operations were carried out, they were not enough to decontaminate all the sites. Moreover, remediation in the present case did not guarantee the total and definitive cessation of the consequences of the dumping as victims continued to be affected beyond November 2015, when the Respondent State declared an end to the remediation operations. 161. In the light of the foregoing, the Court finds that the Respondent State failed to guarantee the right to an effective remedy in respect of the aspects relating to the complete identification of victims and the remediation of the sites concerned. 162. With regard to the obligation to prosecute emanating from the right to an effective remedy, the Court notes that only two directors of TRAFIGURA were sentenced to prison terms for poisoning and attempted poisoning. Further, no agent or official of the Respondent State was found guilty in the wake of the domestic judicial proceedings. In any event, under the terms of the MoU of 13 February 2017, the Respondent State undertook to guarantee the entities and individuals involved immunity from prosecution. It is in application of this MoU that TRAFIGURA executives were released and authorised to leave the country. Accordingly, the Court finds that the Respondent State failed to ensure the right to an effective remedy in relation to the prosecution and punishment of those liable for the toxic waste dumping. 163. In view of the foregoing, the Court finds that the Respondent State violated the right to an effective remedy protected by Article 7 (1) read together with Article 1 of the Charter. 41