156. In the present case, the Court notes that the victims were not prevented from accessing the national courts, as evidenced by the numerous decisions handed down by those courts, including the final judgment of 23 July 2014 handed down by the Joint Chambers of the Supreme Court. It cannot be disputed, therefore, that the right to an effective remedy was guaranteed since domestic remedies were available. Furthermore, the Parties agree that, by signing the MoU, the Respondent State created for TRAFIGURA, and all other persons involved, a regime of impunity through immunity from prosecution. Undoubtedly, the said Memorandum rendered local remedies unavailable, at least to victims other than those who initiated proceedings before national courts. 157. Furthermore, while the Respondent State does not dispute that at least one hundred thousand (100,000) people were victims of the waste dumping, domestic courts awarded compensation to only seven (7), at most, of the more than sixteen thousand (16,000) victims who were party to the domestic proceedings. Actions by other victims were dismissed on the grounds that they could not establish causality between the damage they suffered and the toxic waste dumping. The Court finds that regarding a matter of such magnitude, the domestic courts had the obligation to extend the scope of the investigations in order to take into account the cases of all the victims and award them the reparations as necessary. 158. In any event, the MoU unequivocally proves not only the liability of those involved but also the harm caused to the victims since the State agreed to guarantee immunity and receive funds it had earmarked for the purpose of compensating the victims. The Respondent State, which did not submit on this point, also did not provide evidence that the funds received under the MoU with TRAFIGURA were actually paid to the victims. 159. On the same point, the Court notes that certain aspects of the right to an effective remedy, such as the full identification of victims and the remediation of contaminated sites, were not taken into account during the proceedings before the national courts. On this point, the Court considers 40

Select target paragraph3