secret; 4. meet legal requirements and formalities before a competent authority; 5. the substantiated order issued by a competent authority must be addressed to the Captain General of the Armed Forces; 6. By virtue of the powers vested in him and in consultation with the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, the Captain General of the Armed Forces shall consider whether, in accordance with the above requirements, the case merits granting the competent Judge's petition."69 60. On June 25, 2009, the family members of the victim requested that the Armed Forces clarify the requirements, since they had not been stipulated in Resolution No. 316/09.70 In the absence of a reply from the Ministry of Defense, on December 10, 2009, the family members of the victim filed an action for constitutional relief (acción de amparo) with the Higher District Court in La Paz.71 On December 12, 2009, the Second Criminal Division of the Higher District Court in LA Paz issued Resolution No. 88/2009, declaring the appeal INADMISSIBLE in limine."72 The Division determined that "first the applicants must comply with the procedure indicated by the authority, [...] the action may not be brought instead of other ordinary procedures established by law." The family members of the victim did not reiterate their request to the Ministry of Defense since they considered that the requirements violated their right to the truth and they did not manage to directly access the military archives via this channel. 61. On February 15, 2010, when the criminal proceedings entitled "Public Prosecutors' Office v. Franz Pizarro et al" were in cassation, the family members again requested declassification of and access to the information contained in the military archives.73 On April 1, 2010, the First Criminal Division of the Supreme Court (CSJ) issued Supreme Court ruling No. 125, which ordered the Armed Forces to proceed, together with a representative of the Public Prosecutors' Office, to "declassify the archives in the Second Department of the Chiefs of Staff from June 1979 to December 1980 and to report on all persons entering or leaving the office of the Chiefs of Staff of the Army between July 10 and July 20, 1980, by remitting certified copies to this Court."74 On April 16, 2010, at the request of the family members of the victim, the CSJ issued Supreme Court decision No. 167, specifying that the declassification it had ordered included also "the Classified Documents on the Roster of Armed Forces Personnel kept in the office of the Chiefs of Staff, from June 1979 to December 1980."75 62. For five months the family members of the victim took a series of legal actions to achieve compliance with the declassification orders issued by the CSJ.76 As a result of those endeavors, on September 28, 2010, the Public Prosecutor entered the facilities of the Chiefs of Staff and conducted an on-site inspection Appendix 47. Official letter of June 5, 2009 issued by the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. Attached to the State’s communication of June 22, 2010, received by the IACHR on July 8, 2010. 70 Appendix 48. Communication of June 25, 2009 addressed to the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the State, with a stamp indicating receipt on June 29, 2009. Attached to the petitioner's communication of June 22, 2010, received by the IACHR on July 8 of the same year, and Official Letter of July 6, 2009 signed by the legal advisor to the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. Attached to the State’s communication of June 22, 2010, received by the IACHR on July 8, 2010. 71 Appendix 49. Copy of the document filing the amparo suit, presented by Olga Beatriz Flores Bedregal and Verónica Flores Bedregal before the Higher District Court in La Paz on December 10, 2009. Attachment 8 to the petitioner’s communication of December 20, 2009, received by the IACHR on December 23, 2009 and Attachment 14 to the State’s communication of October 16, 2013, received by the IACHR on October 18, 2913. 72 Appendix 50. Higher District Court of La Paz, Second Criminal Division. Resolution 88/2009 of December 12, 2009. Capital letters used in the original. Attachment 7 to the State’s communication, received by the IACHR on January 19 and 31, 2011. 73 Appendix 44. Supreme Court decision No. 125/09, handed down by the First Criminal Division of the Supreme Court of Justice on April 1, 2010, file No. 136/09, p.5. Attached to the petitioner's communication of June 22, 2010, received by the IACHR on July 8, 2010 and Appendix 51. Official letter of the Office of the Attorney General of the Republic (FGR) of March 12, 2010 addressed to the First Criminal Division of the Supreme Court. Attached to the State’s communication of June 22, 2010, received by the IACHR on July 8, 2010. Capitals used in the original version. 74 Appendix 44. Supreme Court decision No. 125/09, handed down by the First Criminal Division of the Supreme Court of Justice on April 1, 2010, file No. 136/09, p.5. Attached to the State’s communication of June 22, 2010, received by the IACHR on July 8, 2010. Capitals used in the original version. 75 Appendix 52. Supreme Court decision No. 136/09, handed down by the First Criminal Division of the Supreme Court of Justice on April 16, 2010, file No. 136/09, p.2. Attached to the State’s communication of June 22, 2010, received by the IACHR on July 8, 2010. 76 Appendix 53. Communication addressed to the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the Plurinational State of Bolivia, signed by the Appeals Prosecutor in the Office of the Attorney General, Dr. Milton Iván Montellano, and dated September 24, 2010, and stamped as received on September 27, 2010. Attachment 10 to the State’s communication of October 16, 2013, received by the IACHR on October 18, 2013. 69 16