degradation of underground water, Furthermore, the Respondent State confirmed that it took measures to remediate the contaminated sites. The Court recalls, as earlier established in this judgment, that a state’s obligations under international law include the duty to respect, protect, promote and implement the rights enshrined in instruments to which it is a party. 183. The above obligations apply to the right to a satisfactory environment insofar as the Respondent State had a duty to act not only to prevent the dumping of the waste without putting in place the necessary conditions, but also to ensure full and effective decontamination once the waste had been dumped. 184. The Court notes that in the instant case, the Respondent State authorities failed to take appropriate legal, administrative and other measures to prohibit the importation of dangerous wastes on its territory as prescribed by the Bamako Convention. It further finds that these authorities had the obligation to ensure that the dumping of this cargo on the territory of the Respondent State was conducted with a view to protecting the environment from the harmful effects which could result. As earlier concluded in this judgment, the failure of the entities which were charged with the dumping and treatment of the waste does not exonerate the Respondent State of its responsibility to guarantee and protect the environment. 185. Lastly, the Respondent State does not demonstrate that it effectively and promptly cleaned up the polluted sites. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the Respondent State complied with its obligation to protect and implement the right to a generally satisfactory environment favourable to development. 186. In light of the foregoing, the Court finds that the Respondent State violated Article 24 of the Charter. 46