State failed to take adequate measures to enforce domestic legislation and its obligations under the Bamako Convention prohibiting the import and dumping of toxic waste. 126. Finally, the Applicants submit that the lack of appropriate preventive, investigative, punitive and remedial measures constitute a violation of the right to life in the present case. * 127. The Respondent State did not submit on this point. *** 128. Article 4 of the Charter stipulates that: Human beings are inviolable. Every human being shall be entitled to respect for his life and the integrity of his person. No one may be arbitrarily deprived of this right.” 129. The Court recalls, in line with its jurisprudence, that the right to life is the bedrock of all other rights and freedoms.30 It follows that to deprive a person of life is to violate the very basis of these rights and freedoms. It is important to recall in this respect that, unlike other human rights instruments, Article 4 of the Charter establishes a connection between the right to life and the inviolability and integrity of the human person. The Court considers that this framing of the right to life reflects the correlation between these two rights. 31 130. The Court observes that African States recognize the potential impact of toxic waste importation and dumping on human life. This recognition is expressed, in the most solemn terms in the preamble to the Bamako African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights v. Republic of Kenya (merits) (26 May 2017) 2 AfCLR, §§ 94-152 31 Idem, § 70. See also, Human Rights Committee: “The right to life, liberty and security of the person”. Comment No. 36 § 2. 30 32