information shall be remitted to the requester via the Commander in Chief and shall be kept confidential." The Commission reiterates that the victims of serious human rights violations and their family members have a right to direct and timely access to the information needed to ascertain the truth about what happened, including that contained in military archives and that States may not invoke national security concerns to prevent that access. Moreover, when it is a matter of information relating to the forced disappearance of persons, under no circumstances may the information be kept from those investigating the crime and from the victims or close relatives of the victims. 109. Accordingly, the Commission considers that Article 98 of the Organic Law of the Armed Forces could not have been legitimately invoked to deny access to military information to the family members of Juan Carlos Flores Bedregal. Indeed, by inter-American standards, that legal provision can in no way justify preventing victims, their family members and society as a whole from access to the information needed to shed light on the historical truth associated with grave human rights violations. Applying Article 98 of the aforementioned law to information regarding serious human rights violations is incompatible with the obligations incurred by the Bolivian State in this matter. 110. Third, the IACHR notes that the State did not guarantee for the family members of the victim a simple procedure to requesting access to the information contained in the military archives regarding the forced disappearance of Juan Carlos Flores Bedregal, separate from the criminal proceedings under way. On the contrary, the Ministry of Defense, based on the regulations in effect, subjected the family members of the victim to onerous and exorbitant requirements to access the military archives, including having to demonstrate legitimate interest in the information requested, specifying dates and data for the information requested and how they would guarantee the secrecy of the information provided, coming up with a substantiated ruling by a competent authority, as well as complying with other legal requirements and formalities. The IACHR reiterates that for people to be able to request information, the State must make a simple, user-friendly mechanism available that only demands compliance with basic requirements. Moreover the administration has an obligation to advise applicants on how to fill in their application.139 States cannot demand that applicants for information justify their application or insist on other unnecessary and disproportionate requirements.140 These obligations are especially binding in cases of requests for information involving grave human rights violations and in a context of transition s toward the consolidation of democracy, justice, reparation and guarantees of non-repetition. The Bolivian State's failure to comply with this obligation is blatant in the instant case. 111. Fourth, the Commission notes that the family members had no judicial remedy for contesting the decision by the Ministry of Defense and protecting them against rulings that violated their right to access information. The family members of Flores Bedregal challenged through an amparo action the decision by the Ministry of Defense to deny access to information and impose onerous requirements for access, but it was rejected in límine. The judge considered that the family members should first comply with the procedures established by the military authority for access to classified information. The IACHR points out once again that inter-American system case law has consistently held that judicial remedies are compatible with the requirements of the American Convention provided that they are appropriate and effective, that is to say, suitable for affording protection with respect to the legal right infringed and capable of producing the intended results.141 Otherwise, the lack of effectiveness in the remedy would violate the American Convention as it did in the instant case.142 112. Fifth, the IACHR notes that apart from the judicial inspections by the Public Prosecutor's office in the criminal proceedings conducted in the instant case, the State did not accredit or specifically describe the actions it undertook and their characteristics to demonstrate that had made a significant effort using all IACHR, Special Rapporteurship for Freedom of Expression. El derecho de acceso a la información en el marco jurídico interamericano [The right to access information in the Inter-American Legal Framework] (second edition), March 7, 2011, para. 26. 140 IACHR, Special Rapporteurship for Freedom of Expression. El derecho de acceso a la información en el marco jurídico interamericano [The right to access information in the Inter-American Legal Framework] (second edition), March 7, 2011, para. 17. 141 I/A Court H.R., Velásquez Rodríguez Case v. Honduras. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 66. 142 I/A Court H.R., Judicial Guarantees in States of Emergency (Articles 27(2), 25 and 8 of the American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-9/87 of October 6, 1987. Series A No. 9, para. 23. 139 29