to information. It alleged that the State violated Articles 8, 13 and 25 of the Convention, in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 of the same instrument. 128. The State alleged that the Flores Bedregal sisters requested declassification of Armed Forces files for the first time in 2006; that the Third Magistrate's Court had access to this information in 1999, since the Armed Forces provided documentation to Department II of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; that the request of August 22, 2006, was answered; that Letter No. 496/2008 of July 25, 2008 was not complied with because a month later, on August 22, 2008, the judgement of the first instance was decided on appeal; and that the Supreme Court's decisions were effectively enforced on September 23, 2010, pursuant to Supreme Orders No. 125 and No. 167, when the first judicial inspection of the Joint Chiefs of Staff was carried out. A.2. Administrative procedure before the Armed Forces pursuant to Ministerial Resolution No. 316/09 A.2.1. Arguments of the Commission and the parties 129. The Commission noted that the State did not guarantee a simple procedure for making requests for access to information contained in military archives, but onerous and exorbitant requirements were imposed on the victims' families to access military archives. In addition, it indicated that the families did not have an effective judicial remedy to challenge the decision of the Ministry of defense, since the amparo action by which they challenged the decision was rejected in limine. It added that, beyond judicial inspections, the State did not demonstrate that it had made a significant effort to locate and/or reconstruct information under the Armed Forces' control that would determine the whereabouts of Mr. Flores Bedregal and identify the agents responsible for the alleged forced disappearance. 130. The representative reiterated the Commission's arguments on the need for a simple procedure and an effective judicial remedy for access to information. They added that the rejection in limine of the constitutional amparo action filed by the Flores Bedregal sisters made this remedy illusory and requested a declaration of violation of Articles 1(1), 2, 8, 13, and 25 of the American Convention. 131. For its part, the State alleged that the authorities' initial response was intended to regulate access to information in accordance with the Organic Law of the Armed Forces, and that the request was never denied, since the Flores Bedregal sisters asked for clarifications and were told that they would be "answered as soon as possible." It pointed out that the constitutional amparo action is the appropriate remedy to guarantee the right of access to information contemplated in the Constitution. It alleged that, in this case, the Flores Bedregal sisters presented the remedy erroneously, since they failed to comply with the requirement of subsidiarity by not exhausting administrative jurisdiction. B. Considerations of the Court B.1. Access to information in cases of forced disappearance of persons 132. By expressly stipulating the right to seek and receive information, Article 13 of the Convention protects the right of all individuals to request access to State-held information, with the exceptions permitted by the restrictions established in the Convention. 174 Consequently, this article protects the right of the individual to receive such information and Cf. Case of Claude Reyeset al. v. Chile. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of September 19, 2006. Series C No. 151, para. 77, and Case of the Kaliña and Lokono Peoples v. Suriname. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 25, 2015. Series C No. 309, para. 261. 174 40