an accident at the chemical plant”.67 196. The Court notes that in the instant case, after the dumping of toxic waste, the authorities of the Respondent State took a number of measures aimed at informing the general public about the consequences of the toxic waste disposal, including by providing toll-free telephone numbers, broadcasting messages through the media and creating a website dedicated to the disaster.68 In terms of remedial action after the dumping, a crisis committee was set up under the leadership of the Ministry of Environment, Water and Forests, and an official announcement was made informing the general public of the exact location of the polluted sites, stressing the need to stay away from such sites and issuing advisories on which healthcare centres were providing medical care.69 197. The Court underscores that, notwithstanding these important immediate measures, the Respondent State violated its obligation to inform the public of many crucial elements in the context of a disaster of this magnitude and whose effects on the health and environment continue to be felt in the lives of many people. 198. In particular, the Respondent State failed to provide the general public with meaningful information on the long-term consequences of the toxic waste dump, the circumstances of the dumping, the exact composition of the waste, whether it had an impact on other areas or the number of people affected. The Respondent State also failed to provide information on the health risks to which the population was exposed, particularly those who were in the vicinity of the contaminated sites between 19 August 2006 and 15 November 2016. 67 ECHR, (116/1996/735/932), Guerra and Others v. Italy, 19 February 1998, § 59. Amnesty International and Greenpeace report, September 2012, p. 65. 69 Report of the Special Rapporteur on the adverse effects of the movement and dumping of toxic and dangerous products and wastes on the enjoyment of human rights. 68 49