i. Objection based on non-exhaustion of local remedies 88. The Respondent State avers that the Application is premature insofar as the Applicant still had the option to exhaust the remedies available in the national judicial system. It also submits that States should not be held accountable for the failure of Applicants who seize international courts before seeking redress in their national legal system. * 89. In their Reply, the Applicants submit that the Respondent state has not fully fulfilled its obligations of investigating the dumping of toxic waste. They contend that the immunity granted to TRAFIGURA officials has the effect of reducing the jurisdiction of the national commission of inquiry. 90. The Applicants further contend that in domestic courts, the Association of Victims, which is a civil party to the proceedings, requested that the case be transferred to another criminal court. Despite the suspensive effect of this request, the trial continued until the verdict was delivered on the same day. The Applicants also argue that the executive branch intervened insofar as representatives of the Respondent State repeatedly contacted the President of the Victims Association prior to the withdrawal of his application. 91. The Applicants further submit that they allege gross and massive violations of human rights. In their view, the State’s objection should be dismissed, given the large number of victims and the seriousness as well as multiplicity of the violations. They contend that requiring each victim to pursue local remedies would make it almost impossible to seize the Commission or the Court, which in turn would impede these regional mechanisms from fulfilling their mandate to protect Charter rights. *** 24