institutions, and, therefore, meets the requirements of Rule 50 (2) (c) of the Rules. 121. The Court further considers that the Application meets the requirement contained in Rule 50(2)(d) of the Rules insofar as it is not based exclusively on news disseminated through the mass media. 122. In view of the foregoing, the Court finds that the Application meets all the admissibility requirements set out under Article 56 of the Charter, as restated in Rule 50(2) of the Rules, and accordingly declares it admissible. VII. MERITS 123. The Applicants allege that the Respondent State violated the right to respect for life and physical and moral integrity (A), the right to an effective remedy and to adequate compensation for damages (B), the right to physical and mental health (C) and the right to a satisfactory general environment (D). They further allege that the Respondent State violated the right to information (E). The Court will now address each of the alleged violations. A. Alleged violation of the right to life and to physical and moral integrity 124. The Applicants allege that the Respondent State knew or ought to have known that the lives and physical integrity of the inhabitants of Abidjan could be at risk from the dumping of the toxic waste but failed to take measures to mitigate the said risk. 125. The Applicants also argue that, in full knowledge of the risks involved, the Respondent State failed to do everything reasonably possible to prevent the occurrence of certain and imminent risk to the right to life. They further contend that the Ivorian authorities granted a licence to a company that clearly did not have the know-how or the capacity to handle waste such as was transported by the Probo Koala. They also argue that the Respondent 31