The lives of Servio Curipoma and Josefina Callapa have been struck by the same tragedy. For decades now, they have been living above a pool of crude oil that the U.S. company Texaco (later acquired by Chevron) left behind in 1991, after concluding their extraction activity in the land.

Servio, a farmer in Lago Agrio, a city located in the Province of Sucumbíos in the North Amazonian rainforest, has yet to see his land grow any crops. "The soil is no good, nothing grows here," he tells the national TV media Ecuavisa. He carries a long branch that he uses to stick inside the soil. When he proceeds to take it out, the bottom-end of the branch is filled with a thick black layer of crude oil.

But the damage in his crops is overshadowed by what the pollution has meant to the health of his family. Both his parents died of cancer, an illness that has struck many in the Provinces of Sucumbíos and Orellana.

Not far away from where Servio lives, Josefina still mourns the death of her daughter. She sits in her home in Shushufindi, another city located in Sucumbíos, as she talks with reporters for the online Ecuadorian media La Historia. Nine years ago, her daughter died after a severe intoxication from bathing and drinking contaminated water. Her husband also passed away from what she describes a "severe fever". Now, she only asks for clean water.

The story of Servio and Josefina reflect the estimated 30.000 people who were affected by the pollution left behind by Texaco when exploiting the Amazonian rainforest in Ecuador from 1964-1991. The search for justice and accountability has meant that communities have had to endure an over 26-year-long legal battle against the large corporation with no tangible results.

For people like Servio or Josefina, the news that came September 7th, 2018 of the court loss for Ecuador in the Tribunal of Arbitration in The Hague is no surprise.

While the families affected are caught up in the legal system, the discourse around the ruling seems to point fingers at the country's previous administration of Rafael Correa that mishandled the case; or a problematic legal system in the country; as well, as a breach of a Bilateral Investment Treaty (BIT) signed between Ecuador-US in 1993.

Yet it stills raises the question: why did the Tribunal in The Hague rule in favor of a large-scale oil company that has caused environmental and human damages in the Amazonian rainforest of Ecuador?

The ruling is another example of the overall International Investment Arbitrary System that large-corporations stand to benefit from. The communities in Sucumbíos and Orellana are still caught up in the webs of a global legal system that begs for a reform of how it operates.

The history of the battle between Texaco and the communities dates back over five decades ago. From 1964 to 1991 the company operated in Sucumbíos and Orellana because of a concession signed between Ecuador and the U.S.

The concession allowed the oil company activities of "exploration and exploitation of hydrocarbons in the Amazon region", confirms the official report on the case written by the Attorney General of the State. Texaco concluded its activities in 1991 when the Concession Contract ended and they chose not to renew it.

Throughout the 26 years that the oil company operated in the Amazonian region, the environment was affected. A study conducted by the Pontifical Catholic University of Ecuador estimates that "more than 400 thousand hectares were damaged; 16 billion liters of toxic water were thrown into rivers and estuaries, five indigenous nationalities were affected, two extinct indigenous peoples; and thousands of dead animals" were recorded.

And the direct impact on the health, especially of those living near wells, has been yet another consequence. The Institute of Epidemiology and Community Health of Orellana found that between 1985 and 1998, 463 cases of cancer patients were recorded in the most affected zones.

Another study published by the Bilbao Institute of Studies on Development and International Cooperation, found that out of the 1064 people surveyed from the affected zones, 85.2% of them considered that their health had been "greatly affected" by the Texaco's exploitation of oil in their land.

Testimonies of those like health deterioration in Servio and Josefina's families are no exceptions, rather they seem to get lost in the thousands of cases that resemble them.

On November 1993, the first sign of fightback by the communities emerged. A group of them filed a civil action in the United States District Court of New York. The suit was filed on behalf of the 30,000 residents of the Amazonian region of Ecuador.

The claimants "requested environmental remediation for the protection of soils, rivers, streams and watersheds of the Ecuadorian Amazon, as well as compensation for personal damages", claims the State Attorney General's Office report. However, in 2002 the New York Court ruled that the case needed to take place in Ecuador, as the damages were done in the country.

All the while, in 2001 Chevron merged with Texaco, and assumed all of the latter's legal battles.

What followed next, is known as Chevron II: the second major court trial in the search for justice. In 2003, another trial began, this time in the Provincial Court of Sucumbíos against the oil company.

A glimmer of hope arrived for the families affected in 2011, almost two decades after their demand for accountability. The Provincial Court ruled in favor of the claimants, and sentenced Chevron to pay $9.5 billion in damages.

The amount, however, has never been paid. The now controversial sentence was fought back by Chevron in appeal cases. They claim they did not receive a fair trial and point to many inconsistencies in the trial.

"One of their main arguments was that the sentence had not been drafted by the judge who signed it," says Xavier Rubio, lawyer at the Direction of International Affairs at the Attorney General Office. "They said the sentence was illegal (...) they accused the lawyers of the claimants of having colluded with the judge," he adds.

The claims of collusion made by the oil company came when the legal system of the country itself was being questioned. At that point, the government in office, led by President Rafael Correa (2007-2017), were not known for a transparent and independent judicial system.

A Human Rights Watch report in 2012 concluded that "evidence indicates that senior government officials of former President Rafael Correa and the Council of the Judiciary have interfered in the resolution of cases of political interest to the government, as well as in the appointment and dismissal of judges."

Additionally, the president himself made public statements on January 9, 2011 were he did not seem to hide his efforts to interfere in the country's judicial system. "They (the opposition) will say we want to get our hands on the courts. Yes, we want to meddle but for the good of the Ecuadorian people ... We have to change the justice system, compatriots", Correa stated.

In addition, an official report of the General Contralory of the State of Ecuador started a political trial against Gustavo Jalkh, and 4 other members of the Council of Judiciary because they found "some irregularities in the appointment of State prosecutors".

The country's legal system at the time did not indicate independence of powers. Chevron used this as an argument to finally bring the case to its third major court trial: a lawsuit against Ecuador in the Investment Arbitrary System.

The third international court case, dubbed as Chevron III, is different from the previous two. Different in the sense, that this time the oil company faced the State of Ecuador itself, not the collective people affected. This case is one of investment arbitrary and the reason for it has little to do with the actual damage, and more to do with Bilateral Investment Treaties (BIT).

Is this another case of the underdog not being able to triumph? Was Ecuador doomed from the start?

In the discussion surrounding who's to blame for this major loss, one big player is missing: BITs and the International Arbitrary System itself.

In 1993, Ecuador signed a BIT with the U.S. that was ratified and put into motion in 1997. The treaty was meant to boost the economy and attract foreign investment, also providing protections for companies to operate freely in the country.

In 1998, a Contract of Liberation was signed between the country and Texaco, assuring even more protection for the company. The contract stated that Ecuador acknowledged that Texaco had done enough to clean up their extraction work in the Amazonian region and agreed not to sue the company for damages, Rubio confirms.

These agreements signed in the 90s have been detrimental to the State's case. As they allowed, Chevron to sue them in an Arbitrary Court in The Hague for breaching the terms of the agreements.

"In that treaty there is a dispute settlement clause which means the investor can take, if a dispute arises between the investor and the State, that dispute to an international arbitration," adds the Ecuadorian lawyer.

Much has been debated around the International Investment Arbitration System. Developing countries who have signed these investor-protection treaties in hopes of bringing in foreign investment and boosting their economy, have found themselves facing even bigger lawsuits in Arbitration cases where, as is the case with Chevron vs. Ecuador, the investor has sued the country and... won.

While some may disagree. The Investment Policy Hub claims that in arbitration proceedings, 35,7% of the conclusions have favored the State, while 28,7% have decided in favor of the investor. Studies and experts point towards a different direction.

A study by Osgoode Hall Law School of York University in 2016 titled "Who has benefited financially from investment treaty arbitration? An evaluation of the size and wealth of claimants" concluded that: "Our main findings are that the beneficiaries of ISDS, in the aggregate, have overwhelmingly been companies with more than USD1 billion in annual revenue – especially extra-large companies with more than USD10 billion – and individuals with more than USD 100 million in net wealth."

A different study published by The International Institute for Sustainable Development in 2014, agreed that "many states, academics and civil society are voicing their discontent with investor-state arbitration and are calling for change."

More recently, The World Investment Report in 2018 showed there is a significant decrease of international investment agreements signed by States and an increase in treaty-based ISDS cases worldwide.

The following graphs showcase this:

When asked whether this report was an indicator that more countries were coming to terms with cost-benefit of signing BITs and the actual cost of losing arbitrary cases, Gus van Harten, professor of Osgoode Hall Law School of York University and expert on administrative law responded: "I would say that governments have learned the hard way that the costs of the treaties are real and potentially extreme, while the benefits are vague and hard to show."

"In essence, then, the treaties have benefited those who own assets around the world at the expense of everyone else, especially in countries that host a lot of foreign-owned assets," he adds.

The bias in international arbitrary cases can be seen in examples, like the fact that only investors can sue States in international arbitration, but not the other way around. "It's a unilateral protection", says Xavier Rubio.

However, the Ecuadorian lawyer does not call for a sabotage of the system, but for reforms. "The arbitration system and investment treaties have been demonized a bit because of problems that could be said to be isolated. But, of course, there are many things that need to be corrected," he states.

Van Harten, however, is clear in who mostly gains from the system. "I would say that the case is a clear example of how the treaties are designed to give special rights and privileges to multinationals, without corresponding responsibilities that are internationally enforceable in the manner of the rights," he says.

The September 2018 outcome was to be expected. In an international arbitrary system and BITs that protect the investor, States with developing economies, like Ecuador hardly stand a chance with large-scale companies like Chevron.

And in the web of the global legal system, people like Servio, Josefina and the 30,000 people affected by the environmental damage the oil company caused in the Ecuadorian Amazonian rainforest, still hope to see some justice being done; 26 years and counting…