investigating these crimes, and society as a whole have access to all the information in the possession of the State that they need to ascertain the truth of what happened. 2. Analysis of the case 104. The IACHR notes that the family members of the victims asked the authorities on several occasions to declassify and provide access to the information kept in military archives that could shed light on the whereabouts of Juan Carlos Flores Bedregal and possible perpetrators of his forced disappearance. The petitioners stated that, despite their requests to the administration and via the courts, they never managed to have access to the military archives and the required documentation in the possession and control of the Armed Forces. The State has not denied the assertions made by the petitioners. On the contrary, it indicated that the public and declassified records of the Armed Forces were only "the subject of official access" and that they do not contain information useful for investigation the whereabouts of the remains of Juan Carlos Flores Bedregal. The State stressed that the lack of information “is not attributable to the Bolivian State, particularly since it was following the restoration of democracy that the judicial and administrative proceedings needed to throw light on this lamentable occurrence have been conducted." 105. It is up to the IACHR to establish whether in the instant case the State complied with its international obligations derived from the right of access to information of the family members of Juan Carlos Flores Bedregal, as a component of the right to ascertain the truth about what happened to the disappeared victim., and, in particular, whether it effectively complied with its positive obligations to guarantee access to information regarding serious human rights violations contained in State archives. 106. First, the Commission observes that the judicial authorities belatedly issued orders to declassify military archives, which were not complied with in good time by the Armed Forces. Indeed, in connection with the proceedings entitled "Public Prosecutors' Office v. Pizarro Solano et al, the first order to declassify was issued at the appeal stage, despite the fact that the family members if the victim had filed requests at the start of the trial two years earlier. According to allegations by the petitioners, that have not been challenged by the State that order was never complied with. In April 2010, when the criminal trial was at the cassation stage, new orders to declassify were issued at the behest of the family members of the victim. Those orders were obeyed months later, despite requests by the family members of the victim to expedite the process. The Armed Forces only allowed the Public Prosecutor's Office to inspect the archives at the end of September 2010 and certified copies of the documents to which the investigators had access were handed over on October 19, 2910, six days before the CSJ handed down its cassation judgment on October 25, 2010. 107. The State did not accredit any circumstances explaining the failure to adopt timely and ex officio measures to order the declassification of the military archives and for access to the information needed so that the institutions investigating the facts could ascertain the truth about what happened in the instant case. Nor did it explain any measures designed to ensure that, once the court orders to declassify had been issued, they would be promptly and effectively enforced/obeyed. Bolivia was under an obligation to respond in a timely manner to the requests filed for access to information and to ensure that its Armed Forces would officially make available to the authorities in charge of the investigation into the forced disappearance of Mr. Flores Bedregal and to his family members direct access to all the information at their disposal that might be of use for the investigation into the facts and for ascertaining his whereabouts. By omitting to ensure the timely declassification and opening up of the military archives, the State failed to comply with its positive obligations in this case. 108. Second, the IACHR notes that the court orders issues in connection with the "Public Prosecutors' Office v. Franz Pizarro Solano et al" proceedings did not guarantee direct access to said information for the family members of the victim. In the judicial files to which the Commission had access it transpires that the judicial authorities ordered that the information handed over by the Armed Forces to the Public Prosecutors' Office be kept confidential, pursuant to Article 98 of the Organic Law of the Armed Forces, which provides that " classified information regarding the personnel roster of the Armed Forces is secret and inviolable. That condition may only be lifted: 1. By a substantiated petition from the Legislature; 2) By court order of the competent judge, in the form of a decision substantiated in a formal proceeding. In both cases the 28