victims did not receive compensation for the damage suffered. 148. Finally, the Applicants allege that the victims of poisoning were not fully and properly identified. Indeed, according to them, while the first list of victims was established by the authorities after the 2006 incident and included in the MoU of 13 February 2007, the sites remain contaminated to this day. Resultantly, not all persons who were poisoned or suffered the consequences of poisoning were granted victim status and included in the list of victims. * 149. The Respondent State did not submit on this point. *** 150. The Court notes that although none of the Charter’s articles expressly guarantees the right to an effective remedy, Article 1 provides as follows: Member States of the Organization of African Unity, parties to the present Charter shall recognize the rights, duties and freedoms set forth in this Charter and shall undertake to adopt legislative or other measures to implement them. 151. The Court recalls Article 7(1) of the Charter which provides that: Every individual shall have the right to have his cause heard […]. This comprises (a) the right to an appeal to competent national organs against any act violating his fundamental rights as recognized and guaranteed to him by conventions, laws, regulations and customs in force. 152. The Court considers, in line with its decision in Munthali v. Malawi,50 that the right to a remedy arises from a joint reading of the provisions in Articles 1 50 Munthali v. Malawi, supra, §§ 101-102. 38