## Facts

- In May 1998, Marcel Claude Reyes (with Sebastián Cox Urrejola and Arturo Longton Guerrero) requested information from Chile’s Foreign Investment Committee about a major forestry investment (the Río Condor Project) involving logging in southern Chile.
- The request sought, among other items, the identity and background of investors, authorizing acts and contracts, and environmental and financial guarantees related to the project.
- The Foreign Investment Committee provided some information but withheld the remainder without issuing a written, reasoned decision stating the legal basis for non-disclosure.
- The applicants pursued domestic judicial actions, including a protective remedy, seeking disclosure; Chilean courts rejected the claims and did not require the administration to justify the denial.
- After a petition to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, the Commission found responsibility and referred the case to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights for a merits and reparations judgment.

## Issues

1. Whether freedom of thought and expression under Article 13 of the American Convention on Human Rights includes a right of access to information held by public authorities, and whether Chile violated that right by denying information without lawful, written justification.
2. Whether Chile violated the rights to judicial protection and judicial guarantees (Articles 25 and 8) by failing to provide an effective remedy and meaningful review of the denial of access.
3. Whether Chile failed to comply with its general obligations to respect and ensure rights and to adopt domestic measures (Articles 1(1) and 2) by lacking adequate rules and procedures governing access to state-held information.

## Decision

- The Court held Chile responsible for violating Article 13 by denying access to state-held information without demonstrating a lawful basis for restriction and without issuing a justified written decision.
- The Court found violations of Article 25 and related Article 8 guarantees because domestic remedies did not provide effective, reasoned judicial review of the refusal.
- The Court held Chile breached Articles 1(1) and 2 by failing to adopt domestic legal provisions and procedures necessary to make the right of access to state-held information effective.
- The Court ordered reparations including disclosure of the requested information to the extent available (or an explanation of unavailability), publication of the judgment, payment of compensation and costs, and legal/institutional reforms to secure access to information.

## Legal Principles

- Article 13’s protection of the right to “seek” and “receive” information includes a positive, enforceable right to obtain information held by the state, subject only to limited exceptions.
- Restrictions on access must be established by law, pursue a legitimate aim, and be necessary and proportionate in a democratic society; the state bears the burden to justify non-disclosure.
- Authorities must provide a written, reasoned decision identifying the legal grounds for denial to enable accountability and effective judicial review.
- States must provide effective judicial remedies to challenge denials of access to information, including review capable of assessing legality and requiring adequate reasons.
- Under Articles 1(1) and 2, states must adopt domestic laws and procedures that operationalize the right of access, define exceptions, and ensure enforceable remedies.

## Conclusion

The Court recognized access to state-held information as protected by freedom of expression, required reasoned and lawful refusals subject to effective judicial review, and ordered disclosure and structural reforms to ensure the right’s practical enforcement.


Claude Reyes v. Chile, Inter-Am. Ct. H.R. (ser. C) No. 151 (2006)