-15reconsideration of the judgment concerning the remedy for protection, which was rejected, and a complaint before the Supreme Court, which was also rejected. “The forestry project [in question] was never executed, because, after about five years of negotiation, public debate and public obstruction […], it was not implemented owing to financial problems.” He referred to information they requested from the National Forestry Commission in 2000 concerning an investigation carried out by that agency. The information was not provided and they resorted to the courts; on this occasion they won the action for access to information. Based on his experience in relation to environmental issues, he considers that “it is extremely difficult to have access to information” and, consequently, asks that “this information [which he was refused] should be made public […] and that the State of Chile should end the practice of secrecy, which prevents its citizens from exercising their rights and is an obstacle to freedom of expression.” b) Proposed by the State 2. Eduardo Moyano Berríos, Executive Vice President of the Foreign Investment Committee from 1994 to 2000 With regard to the management of foreign investment projects, “each project has a file, containing all the information provided [by the investor] to FIC.” “The complete information file” is not sent to the Ministers, but rather “a report on this information [and] any documents considered to be of major importance.” He is “certain there is [a file] on the Trillium project,” and also that “the Ministers duly approved the project in 1991, if my memory does not fail me.” “There was a public debate on the project” during the time he was Executive Vice President of FIC. The Terram Foundation’s request for information on the Trillium project in May 1998 resulted in a meeting on May 19, 1998, during which “a significant part of the information it held [was handed over], additional information was sent to the Terram Foundation by fax the same day.” The information provided concerned “when the project had been approved, the names of the companies involved, the investment flows to date, the type of project, its location, etc.” Regarding the information that gave rise to the dispute, as Vice President he did not provide the information requested in section 3 of the request for information, because “the Foreign Investment Committee […] did not disclose the company’s financial data, since providing this information would be contrary to public interest,” which was “the country’s development.” “It was not reasonable that foreign companies applying to the Foreign Investment Committee should have to disclose their financial information in this way, information that could be very important to them in relation to their competitors; hence, this could have been an obstacle to the foreign investment process.” He did not provide the information requested in section 6, because the background information that the Committee could request from other institutions “did not exist,” and the Committee did not having policing functions; and he did not provide the information requested in section 7, because “the Foreign Investment Committee had neither the responsibility nor the capacity to evaluate each project on its merits; it had a staff of just over 20 persons. Furthermore, this was not necessary, since the role of the Foreign Investment Committee