-16is to authorize the entry of capital and the corresponding terms and conditions, and the country had an institutional framework for each sector.” Trillium was not consulted prior to the refusal of this information; rather the refusal was based on “a policy” and the practice of the Foreign Investment Committee and its Executive Vice Presidency. Regarding the mechanism for responding to requests for information received by the Committee, the practice was to answer the request in writing. In this case, the request “was answered by a meeting and a fax.” Subsequently, “there were letters […] that were answered orally”; in other words, “there was personal contact” and, hence, it was not considered “necessary to formalize this exchange.” He stated that “written questions should be answered in writing and, if this was not always done, [he was] guilty of an administrative error.” EXPERT OPINIONS a) Proposed by the Commission 1. Ernesto Villanueva, lawyer “Article 13 of the Convention has been interpreted systematically as a source of one aspect of the right of access to public information.” “On the one hand, human development […] is engendering increased demand [as regards] the spirit of the norm [and,] on the other hand[,…] the right of access to public information implies that [society] is the owner of the right […] and that […] the State authorities are depositaries of information that does not belong to them.” An appropriate law on access to public information should include an extensive number of entities that are obliged to provide information, and applicants for information should not have to justify their request, since it refers to public information and, thus, to a fundamental human right. Another important factor is that, when classifying information as confidential, limited use should be made of the exceptions. It must be demonstrated that there is probable and possible harm that would affect the general interest and the exception invoked; consequently, it would be necessary to explain the reasons why this information has not been provided. In addition, it must be shown that this harm would be greater than the public’s right to know the information for “reasons of public interest.” Only in this way, could a distinction be made between confidentiality based on political criteria, and confidentiality because matters of public interest that should be retained as an exception to access to information could be jeopardized. The law should provide for institutions to ensure compliance. The more advanced countries have introduced legal measures such as the obligation to keep a complete record of all activities; they also give the regulatory agency powers to investigate and crosscheck, allowing it to verify whether the information truly does not exist or whether this is merely a mechanism for refusing to provide it to the applicant. In this specific case, the Foreign Investment Committee did not conform to international standards. The modifications that Chile has made to its laws do not meet these standards, because, owing to legal vacuums, the State is able to cite a series of discretional factors by interpreting the exceptions in order not to provide the requested information.