[...]

[...]

This being so, the following seems to be the accurate principle on the subject: (1) As a rule, it is for the plaintiff State to prove that there are no effective remedies to which recourse can be had; (2) no such proof is required if there exists legislation which on the face of it deprives the private claimants of a remedy; (3) in that case it is for the defendant State to show that, not withstanding the apparent absence of a remedy, its existence can nevertheless reasonably be assumed; (4) the degree of burden of proof thus to be adduced ought not to be so stringent as to render the proof unduly exacting. Both in the written and the oral proceedings the Government of Norway has attempted to adduce such proof.