-14been possible if FIC had not been prudent about how it managed the technical, financial and economic information relating to foreign investment projects.” B) TESTIMONIAL AND EXPERT EVIDENCE 49. On April 3, 2006, the Court received the statements of the witnesses proposed by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and by the State, and of the expert witnesses proposed by the Commission, by the alleged victims’ representative, and by the State during a public hearing (supra para. 32). The Court summarizes the principal parts of these testimonies and expert opinions below. TESTIMONIES a) Proposed by the Inter-American Commission 1. Marcel Claude Reyes, alleged victim He is an economist, and was a founder of the Terram Foundation as well as its Executive Director from 1997 to 2003. The basic aims of this organization were “to participate actively in public debates and in the production of sound, scientific information to support the social and civic efforts of the people of Chile in favor of sustainable development.” In 1983, he was an official of the Central Bank and was appointed as an adviser to the Foreign Investment Committee and to the Environmental Accounts Unit. Regarding his request for information from the Foreign Investment Committee in relation to the Río Cóndor project and the Trillium company, his intention had been to “play an active part […] in the debate and discussion on the Río Cóndor project […] from an economic perspective, in order to make a technical, financial and social evaluation of the project, and [to assess] the potential […] development of the region [and] of the country [as a result] of the project.” The project had a “significant environmental impact” and gave rise to public debate. Playing an active part, “required a series of elements of information [from the Foreign Investment Committee], because the information held by the public entities involved in environmental matters and by the public itself was insufficient.” A formal written request was made, asking, among other matters, for information on the suitability of the investor, his international experience and his compliance with the environmental, legal and fiscal laws and regulations. “As a result of [this] request, [they] received a note from the Executive Vice President of the Committee at that time […], who invited [Arturo Longton and himself] to a meeting,” during which he handed them “a sheet with the name of the investor, the name of his company [and] the amount of capital that he had asked to import into the country.” Following the meeting, he received “a fax on the afternoon of that same day […] stating that […] the information on associated capital amounts had been omitted; however, this was not included in the fax.” He stated that he had obtained partial information and had not receive either an oral or written response concerning the missing information, or the reasons why he had not been given or would not be given this information, even after insisting on two further occasions. Subsequently, after a “reasonable time” had elapsed and without knowing why the information had been refused, they resorted to the courts of law, filing a remedy of protection, which was rejected “because it was not pertinent”; an appeal for