95 actions of the investigating authorities.” The Court observes that the representatives did not provide any arguments as to whether domestic law regulates this type of restriction of access to information; how these possible restrictions would have functioned in the instant case, and why these possible restrictions are unjustified or disproportionate. 382. In addition, the representatives indicated that they requested copies of the case file from the Office of the Deputy Attorney General for the Investigation of Organized Crime and received the response that “they could not be given access to the case file because, when organized crime is being investigated, the information is confidential.” They added that this case file “is kept in utmost secrecy.” The Tribunal observes that no arguments were submitted on domestic law regulating restrictions in access to information on investigations into organized crime. 383. According to the representatives, the impossibility of accessing the case file prevented them from “knowing what progress had been made in the investigations and the lines of inquiry that the authorities were following to attribute responsibility to those probably responsible for the facts”; moreover, it did not allow the next of kin to “exercise their constitutional right to contribute to the investigations and, if appropriate, to provide support to the decisions of the Public Prosecutor’s Office.” The Court observes that no arguments were submitted on how domestic law regulates this right to contribute to the investigations. 384. The State affirmed that it “had provided [the victims’ next of kin with] all the information concerning the case files” and that they “and their authorized representatives, according to the case-file, have access to the investigations at all time.” 385. Witness Caballero Rodríguez indicated that the victims’ next of kin have regular access to the investigation file, and can gain access to it, read it and photocopy it. He indicated that “the next of kin of [Laura Berenice Ramos] had access to the case file through an intervener representative”; the mother of Claudia Ivette González “has contacted him twice [and] requested reports from the case file, including certified copies” and, in the case of Esmeralda Herrera, “[the] intervener […] has not had recourse [to the Public Prosecutor’s Office] for information in this regard.” Additionally, he noted that the intervener in the case of Claudia Ivette González was recently given “all the documents in the case file.”408 386. The Tribunal notes that the evidence with which it has been provided includes two decisions denying copies. One of them establishes that “these copies […] will be provided,” but advises that “at present it is not possible to process the request because the case file is being reviewed in the city of Chihuahua” and states that, when the case file is returned, “the request will be processed and the copies required will be delivered as soon as possible.”409 The other decision indicates that, according to the case file, the intervener who requested the copies is not “empowered to act as a representative.”410 Other similar requests for copies and decisions on providing copies are included.411 408 Testimony given by witness Caballero Rodríguez, supra note 386. 409 Cf. decision issued by an official of the Public Prosecutor’s Office attached to the Joint Agency to Investigate and Prosecute Murders of Women, of May 3, 2007 (case file of attachments to the pleadings and motions brief, volume XXIV, attachment 34, folios 8480). 410 Cf. decision issued by an official of the Public Prosecutor’s Office on January 30, 2008 (case file of attachments to the answer to the application, volume XXXV, attachment 50, docket II, volume IV, folio 12982). 411 In the case of Claudia Ivette González, copies were requested on April 1, 2002, May 2, 2007, January 29 and November 4, 2008, and February 12, 2009, and copies were issued on April 1, 2002, and