that the Respondent State was obliged, under the terms of the MoU, to “settle all compensation claims”. With regard to the victims, it further found that only four (4) of the seven (7) victims’ families had provided evidence that the deaths were the result of poisoning due to exposure to toxic waste. The Court of Appeal, therefore, upheld the contested decision with respect to these four (4) victims only. 12. The seven (7) victims then appealed the Court of Appeal's decision to the Supreme Court. On 2 February 2012, the Supreme Court overturned the decision of the Court of Appeal found TRAFIGURA and Puma Energy liable, ordering them to pay damages of Fifty Million (50,000,000) CFA francs to the families of all seven (7) deceased persons who had won their case in the Court of First Instance. Additionally, the Supreme Court dismissed the claims of the beneficiaries of the other four (4) victims. 13. On 23 July 2014, by Decision No. 498/2014, the Joint Chambers of the Supreme Court dismissed a second appeal filed by the families of the other deceased victims on the grounds that they had not provided sufficient evidence to prove the causal link between the deaths and the waste poisoning. 14. In November 2015, the authorities of the Respondent State issued a statement to the effect that the decontamination of the sites had been completed. 15. It also emerges from the Application that although the Respondent State established a compensation programme for victims and families of the deceased, a large number of victims were not taken into account and thus did not receive compensation. B. Alleged violations 16. The Applicants allege the violation of the s following rights: i. The right to an effective remedy and the right to seek redress for harm 6