VII-III RIGHT TO JUDICIAL GUARANTEES, IN RELATION TO THE OBLIGATIONS TO RESPECT AND ENSURE RIGHTS AND TO ADOPT DOMESTIC LEGAL PROVISIONS, ESTABLISHED IN THE AMERICAN CONVENTION 173 124. In order to determine whether the State is responsible for the alleged violations of Articles 13 and 8(1), in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2, all of the American Convention, the Court will synthesize the arguments of the parties, and make the pertinent considerations on the judicial processes and the normative framework related to the right to seek and receive information. 125. According to the file, the requests for declassification and access to information contained in military archives "that could clarify the whereabouts of Juan Carlos Flores Bedregal and possible perpetrators of his forced disappearance" were initiated and promoted in the context of the criminal "Public Prosecutor's Office v/ Franz Pizarro Solano et al." proceedings and the administrative procedure before the Armed Forces derived from Ministerial Resolution No. 316. As to Procedure No. 6441/09, reference will be made only with regard to the process of the "Public Prosecutor v/ Franz Pizarro Solano et al." A. Judicial and administrative proceedings A.1. Criminal proceedings "Public Prosecutor's Office v/ Franz Pizarro Solano et al." A.1(1). Arguments of the Commission and the parties 126. The Commission reported that in the criminal proceedings "Public Prosecutor v/ Franz Pizarro Solano et al.," the judicial authorities belatedly issued orders for the declassification of military archives, which were not complied with in a timely manner by the Armed Forces. It noted that the State was obliged to respond in a timely manner to requests for access to information and to ensure that the Armed Forces provided the information to the judicial authorities and to Mr. Flores Bedregal's family; it therefore failed to fulfil its positive obligations in this matter. In addition, it noted that court orders did not guarantee direct access to information for Mr. Flores Bedregal's relatives. It argued that victims of serious human rights violations and their families have the right to direct and timely access to the information necessary to know the truth about what occurred, including that contained in military archives; whereas states cannot invoke national security reasons to prevent such access; and that the invocation of article 98 of the Organic Law of the Armed Forces is incompatible with the obligations of the State in this matter. It concluded that the State violated Articles 13 and 25 of the Convention, in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 of the same instrument. 127. The representative alleged that, by not responding in a timely manner to requests for access to information, the State obstructed exercise of the right to the truth and prevented the obtaining of essential evidence for the clarification of what occurred. It indicated that the judicial authorities issued the condemnatory judgment without having responded to the requests for declassification and access to military archives submitted in 2006; and that in the appeal, the judicial authorities ordered access to the military archives, but did not ensure compliance or take measures to ensure their effectiveness. Similarly, no sanctions were imposed for disobedience to orders, thus emphasizing the right to truth and the right of access 173 Articles 1(1), 2, 8(1), 13(1), and 13(2) of the American Convention. 39