and 7(1)(a) of the Charter. These provisions are also in line with the general principle of law according to which the guarantee of any right includes the principle of a remedy in case of violation. 153. The Court recalls that in line with settled international human rights jurisprudence, the right to a remedy includes not only access to institutional remedies, but also restitution, compensation, non-repetition and rehabilitation.51 The essence of the right to an effective remedy is that individuals must have access to domestic mechanisms that can be used to remedy an alleged human rights violation. To be effective, these national mechanisms must be able to respond fully to allegations of human rights violations.52 Recalling its jurisprudence, the Court notes that to be effective, a remedy must be, at the very least, available, effective and satisfactory. 53 154. In the particular context of damage caused by the dumping of hazardous waste, the obligation to provide an effective remedy under the Charter is restated in Article 4(a) of the Bamako Convention, which provides that: The Parties undertake to enforce the obligations of this Convention and to prosecute violators in accordance with their national legislation and/or international law. 155. The Court considers that the purpose of this obligation to prosecute is to implement the right of victims to an effective remedy. The right to an effective remedy under human rights law and jurisprudence must lead to the implementation of the right to restitution or, where this is not applicable, the right to compensation for loss suffered and other necessary measures. 51 See, for example, Loayza Tamayo v. Peru, IACtHPR, Judgment on Reparations, November 27, 1998, Series C No. 42, § 85; Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras, IACtHPR, Judgment on Reparations, July 21, 1989, Series C No. 7, § 25; Papamichalopoulos and Others v. Greece, ECHR, October 31, 1995, Series A No. 330-B, § 36 52 Dawda Jawara v. The Gambia (2000) RADH 98 (ACHPR 2000). 53 See Diakité v. Mali (admissibility and jurisdiction) (28 September 2017) 2 AfCLR 118, § 41; Lohé Issa Konaté v. Burkina Faso (merits) (5 December 2014) 1 AfCLR 314, § 41 39