and lastly, setting up procedures aimed at solving problems caused by their action.47 143. Be that as it may, the Court notes that in the instant case, even though the multinational company, TRAFIGURA Limited, which hired the MV Probo Koala was at the origin of the impugned violations, the main responsibility for human rights violations resulting from the dumping of the toxic waste in Abidjan is, ultimately, borne by the Respondent state. 144. In view of all of the foregoing, the Court finds that the Respondent State violated Article 4 of the Charter. B. Alleged violation of the right to an effective remedy 145. The Applicants allege that the Respondent State violated the right to an effective remedy and the right to reparation for damages by failing to ensure that TRAFIGURA executives were actually brought to justice, but instead entered into a settlement with them, thereby preventing victims from suing them.48 146. The Applicants also argue that the Respondent State did not prosecute its officials implicated in the dumping of toxic waste in Abidjan either. They claim that only two employees were tried and convicted.49 147. The Applicants further argue that the Respondent State violated the right to reparation insofar as the victims were not afforded adequate, effective and prompt reparations. They claim that although the Respondent State put in place a compensation programme for victims, the said programme was not accompanied by any additional measures to guarantee non-repetition, satisfaction or rehabilitation. The Applicants submit that the compensation programme was inadequate and did not achieve its objective, as some 47 Ibid. 48. Application, 49. Application, §§ 114-120. §§ 121-123. 37