96. Based on the foregoing considerations, the Commission concludes that the Bolivian State violated the rights established in Articles 8.1 and 25,1 of the American Convention in conjunction with Articles 1.1 and 2 of the same instrument, as well as Articles I b) ad III of the IACFDP, to the detriment of Juan Carlos Flores Bedregal and his family members. D. Rights to Access to Information (Articles 13,124 1.1, and 2 of the Convention) and Judicial Protection (Article 25 of the American Convention) 1. Additional considerations regarding access to information relating to grave human rights violation contained in State archives 97. The right of access to information is a fundamental right protected by Article 13 of the American Convention.125 It is a particularly important right for the workings of democratic systems and an indispensable tool for the exercise of other human rights, 126 As inter-American case law has reiterated, everyone is entitled to access information controlled by the State, to which end it is not necessary to accredit a direct interest or personal need to obtain the information in the possession of the State, except in cases in which legitimate restrictions apply that are permitted under the American Convention.127 98. Inter-American jurisprudence has recognized that the right to access information protects the right of victims and their family members, as well as society as a whole, to be access information on grave human rights violation that is stored in State archives, even if said archives are kept in security agencies or military or police facilities.128 That presupposes a set of positive obligations or actions to take, above all in contexts involving a transition to a democratic State governed by the rule of law.129 99. First, States need to adapt their legal framework in order to guarantee full and effective exercise of the right to access information regarding serious human rights violations. The laws must ensure that access to information is governed by the principles of maximum transparency and good faith. As the InterAmerican Court has established, in cases of human rights violations, State authorities cannot take legitimately hide behind such mechanisms as State secrets or the confidentiality of the information. Nor can they invoke reasons of public interest or national security to avoid providing the information required by judicial or administrative authorities responsible for investigation or proceedings that are pending,130 Several countries in the region have adopted regulations that establish that information on human rights violations not only must be provided to the authorities in charge of investigating those crimes; under no circumstances may it be kept secret.131 The pertinent portions of Article 13 of the American Convention provide that: 1. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought and expression. This right includes freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing, in print, in the form of art, or through any other medium of one's choice. 2. The exercise of the right provided for in the foregoing paragraph shall not be subject to prior censorship but shall be subject to subsequent imposition of liability, which shall be expressly established by law to the extent necessary to ensure: a. Respect for the rights or reputations of others; or b. The protection of national security, public order, or public health or morals. […] 124 IACHR, The Right to the Truth in the Americas, OEA/Ser.L/V/II.152, Doc. 2, August 13, 2014, para. 107ff; IACHR, Special Rapporteurship for Freedom of Expression, El derecho de acceso a la información en el marco jurídico interamericano [The right to access information in the Inter-American Legal Framework] (second edition). para. 77; IACHR, Special Rapporteurship for Freedom of Expression, Annual Report (2010), Chapter III, Access to Information on human rights violations. 129 IACHR, The Right to the Truth in the Americas, OEA/Ser.L/V/II.152, Doc. 2, August 13, 2014, para. 110 ff. 130 IACHR, The Right to the Truth in the Americas, OEA/Ser.L/V/II.152, Doc. 2, August 13, 2014, para. 113. See, inter alia, I/A Court H.R. Case of Myrna Mack Chang v. Guatemala. Judgment of November 25, 2003. Series C No. 101, para. 180; Case of Tiu Tojín v. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 26, 2008. Series C No. 190, para. 77; Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 23, 2009. Series C No. 209, para. 258; Case of Gomes Lund et al. ("Guerrilha do Araguaia") v. Brazil. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 24, 2010. Series C No. 219, para. 196-202. 131 IACHR, The Right to the Truth in the Americas, OEA/Ser.L/V/II.152, Doc. 2, August 13, 2014, para. 113. See, Republic of Peru, Law 27806—Law on Transparency and Access to Public Information, Article 15-C, establishing that "information relating to the violation of human rights or of rights under the 1949 Geneva Conventions, by anyone in any circumstances shall not be regarded as classified information"; Eastern Republic of Uruguay, Law No. 18.381, Right of Access to Public Information, Article 12, establishing that "Persons 128 26