all the information generated or stored by a state entity, without establishing safeguards that allow balancing possible values or objectives in conflict, is not compatible with the right to seek and receive information recognized in Article 13.1 of the American Convention290. 321. Likewise, the IACHR notes that the petitioners did not have any judicial or administrative remedy intended to dispute the decision to classify as secret the documentation that the SIDE and other state intelligence agencies incorporated into the investigation into the AMIA attack. The foregoing was not disputed by the State. In this sense, the IACHR considers it appropriate to point out that according to the jurisprudence of the Inter-American Court, “what is incompatible with a rule of law and effective judicial protection is not that there are secrets, but rather that these secrets escape the law, that is, that the authority has areas in which it is not responsible because they are not legally regulated and therefore are outside any control system” 291. 322. The Commission values the measures adopted since 2003 by the Executive Branch, the Ministry of Justice, and the Intelligence Secretariat that relieved a considerable number of officials and intelligence agents from the obligation to keep secrecy in order to enable their respective appearances in the framework of the oral trial held before the TOF 3. Likewise, the IACHR considers that the enactment of decrees 786/03 and 787/03 which created within the Ministry of Intelligence and in each of the security forces security an Information Collection Unit (URI) destined to search, verify and analyze the existing information and communicate its findings to the competent judges, constituted a necessary measure in order to guarantee the right of the petitioners to access the information, and of society in general to know the truth292. 323. However, the IACHR notes that the decision to initiate a survey of the information held by the SIDE and the federal security forces and to hand over custody of the documentary funds to the UFI AMIA did not fully guarantee the petitioner’s right to access to information. In this regard, the Commission notes that decrees 786/03 and 787/03 only had the effect of enabling intelligence information to be shared with the state authorities in charge of investigating the attack, but they did not provide for the elimination of the security classification placed on those documents. Consequently, the information gathered in these tasks continued to be out of the reach for the petitioners, despite being constituted as parties in the proceedings. 324. The Commission understands that the situation described in the preceding paragraphs went on from 2004 until the enactment of Decree 395/15 in March 2015. Said regulation ordered the declassification of all the documentation that was sent into custody by the Secretary of Intelligence to the UFI-AMIA (art 1), of the additional documentation in the files of the former SIDE (art 2) and of all other documentation that had not been provided in a timely manner to the case that, on the date of issuance of the decree, is in the power of the Federal Intelligence Agency (art 3). In this way, as specified by the UFI-AMIA, all the information generated by the former SIDE “ceased to be reserved to the parties and was strictly categorized as documentary evidence under the terms of the National Criminal Procedure Code”293. 325. Based on the foregoing, the Commission concludes that the Argentine State, from July 18, 1994, to March 2015, did violate the petitioners' right of access to information related to the attack, in that it upheld the confidentiality of those documents classified as secret by the intelligence agencies participating in the investigations294. I/A Court H.R., Case of Gomes Lund et al. ("Guerrilha do Araguaia") v. Brazil. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 24, 2010. Series C No. 219, para. 202. 291. I/A Court H.R., Case of Myrna Mack Chang v. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 25, 2003. Series C No. 101, para. 181. 292 Decree 786/03 dated September 18, 2003. Available at: http://servicios.infoleg.gob.ar/infolegInternet/annexs/8500089999/88546/norma.htm; Decree 787/03 dated September 18, 2003. Available at: http://servicios.infoleg.gob.ar/infolegInternet/annexs/85000-89999/88547/norma.htm 293 Annex 20. UFI AMIA. "The process of declassification of reserved or secret information on the attack and its cover-up" Page 11. Annex 27 to the petitioner's communication dated November 11, 2019. 294 I/A Court H.R., Case of Gudiel Álvarez et al. ("Diario Militar") v. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 20, 2012. Series C No. 253, para. 450; I/A Court H.R., Case of Myrna Mack Chang v. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 25, 2003. Series C No. 101, para. 180. 290 61