31. Petitioners argue that Article 13 of the American Convention on Human Rights includes the right to seek information, which imposes a positive obligation on States to ensure access to information, and particularly state-held information. To support this interpretation, petitioners refer to the "Recommendation on Access to Government Files and Documents" 2 published by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights in 1998 as well as subsequent publications by the Office of the Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression. 3 They claim that the decision of the Santiago Appeals Court to declare the victims' recurso de protección inadmissible was a violation of the right to access to information protected by the American Convention. In addition, petitioners argue that the decision also characterizes a failure of the domestic judicial system to protect a fundamental right and thus a violation of Article 25 of the American Convention. 32. In submissions to the IACHR, the State argued that the information in question should be considered confidential or classified, but the petitioners refute this assertion. The petitioners cite the 1999 Annual Report of the Office of the Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression which states that requests for state-held information should only be denied when three conditions are met: the information must relate to a legitimate aim listed in the law; disclosure must threaten to cause substantial harm to that aim; and the harm to the aim must be greater than the public interest in having the information. 4 The petitioners note that the government of Chile has not made an express legal authorization to classify such material, and the confidentiality was never justified in terms of the exceptions set forth in the American Convention. 33. Also, petitioners maintain that deforestation of a native forest can affect the enjoyment of other fundamental human rights. Thus, the legitimacy and seriousness of investors constitutes a legitimate public interest that justifies direct citizen participation in its management. Petitioners note that the right to participate in government is recognized in Article 23 of the American Convention. 2. Arguments regarding exhaustion of domestic remedies 34. The petitioners claim that the definition of domestic remedies extends only to judicial remedies, and does not include the legislative and administrative remedies outlined by the State. The jurisprudence of the Inter-American Court has interpreted Article 46(1) of the American Convention of Human Rights as follows: "The rule of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies under the international law of human rights has certain implications that are present in the Convention. Under the Convention, States Parties have an obligation to provide effective judicial remedies to victims of human rights violations" (emphasis added). 5 35. However, the petitioners further argue that even given the broadest possible understanding of "domestic remedies," they cannot be held responsible for failing to utilize the measures suggested by the State: the legislative recurso de fiscalización or the administrative recurso de reposición. 2 IACHR, Annual Report 1998. Chapter 7, para. 20. 3 See, e.g., IACHR, Annual Report 1999. Volume III. Report of the Office of the Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression, OEA/Ser.L/V/II.106, page 25. 4 "The Public's Right to Know. Principles on Freedom of Information Legislation." Article XIX. IAHCR, Annual Report 1999, Volume III, Report of the Office of the Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression, OEA/Ser.L/V/II.106. 5 IACtHR, Velásquez Rodríguez Case, Judgment of July 29, 1998, para. 62.