and discussed with [them] as soon as it was available.”375 It is clear that this request for information is unrelated to “a matter of evident public interest,” rather it refers to a matter of interest to the Kaliña and Lokono indigenous peoples in order to exercise their right to judicial protection (Article 25) in relation to their rights to collective property, participation and consultation. 15. To the contrary, the freedom of information recognized in Article 13 of the Convention refers (in the terms transcribed above from the judgment in the Sarayaku case) to “information [that] is vital for effective democratic monitoring of the State’s management of the exploration and exploitation of natural resources on the territory of indigenous communities.” The instant case does not relate to the “democratic control of the State’s management,” but to the exercise of the specific rights mentioned at the end of the preceding paragraph. As the judgment indicates, “the information requested was important documentation to provide the Kaliña and Lokono peoples with precise facts on how many individuals from outside their communities were in the area, and the legal situation of the land ownership. Thus, the information could have provided them with additional evidence when filing their claims in the domestic jurisdiction.” 376 16. Therefore, it was not in order to declare a violation of Article 13 of the Convention; rather it was sufficient to declare the violation of Article 25 (Right to Judicial Protection). III. 17. Article 23 (Right to Participate in Government) was not violated Article 23 of the American Convention establishes the following: Article 23. Right to Participate in Government 1. Every citizen shall enjoy the following rights and opportunities: a. to take part in the conduct of public affairs, directly or through freely chosen representatives; b. to vote and to be elected in genuine periodic elections, which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and by secret ballot that guarantees the free expression of the will of the voters; and c. to have access, under general conditions of equality, to the public service of his country. 2. The law may regulate the exercise of the rights and opportunities referred to in the preceding paragraph only on the basis of age, nationality, residence, language, education, civil and mental capacity, or sentencing by a competent court in criminal proceedings. 18. In this case, Article 23 was transcribed in the text of the judgment. But the transcription is partial and biased. It only goes as far as the words “public affairs,” and omits the passage that states “directly or through freely chosen representatives” as well as subparagraphs (b) and (c) regarding the “rights and opportunities” “to vote and to be elected” and to have equal access “to the public service.” Both the elements omitted and the reference to “public affairs” and the name of the rights in question (“Right to Participate in Government”) would be sufficient to exclude the application of the norm allegedly 375 Case of the Kaliña and Lokono Peoples v. Suriname, supra, para. 263. 376 Case of the Kaliña and Lokono Peoples v. Suriname, supra, para. 267. 6