-35provisions on freedom of expression.” “This means that the restriction must not only be related to one of the [legitimate] objectives [that justify it], but it must also be shown that disclosure could cause substantial prejudice to this objective and that the prejudice to the objective is greater than the public interest in having the information” (evidence of proportionality); (d) Most States of the Americas have regulations concerning access to information. The respective Chilean laws were not applied in this case because they were promulgated after the facts that gave rise to the petition. “The State of Chile has made a series of legislative modifications; however[, …] these do not guarantee effective and broad access to public information.” “The exceptions established by law […] grant an excessive degree of discretionality to the official who determines whether or not the information is disclosed”; (e) In the instant case, the Commission focused its attention on the information concerning the FIC assessment of the pertinence of the foreign investors, which was not provided to the alleged victims, and which was not officially refused; (f) Regarding the State’s argument that, if the type of information requested had been revealed to the alleged victims, it would have violated the right to confidentiality of the companies concerned, it should be recalled that restrictions to the right to seek, receive and impart information must be expressly established by law. “The State has not cited any provision of Chilean legislation or any legal precedent which expressly establishes that information on the decision-making procedure of the Foreign Investment Committee is confidential.” The decision to retain information appears to be “totally at the discretion of the Vice President of the Foreign Investment Committee.” Additionally, in its answer to the application, the State departs from the line of argument on confidentiality, alleging that the Foreign Investment Committee did not have the time, capacity or legal powers to investigate the circumstances of the investors; (g) The Foreign Investment Committee never provided a written response with regard to the missing information and has not shown how retaining the information in question was “necessary” to achieve one of the legitimate objectives established in Article 13 of the Convention. Moreover, it never presented any argument to prove that the disclosure of the information would have resulted in substantial prejudice to these objectives, and that this prejudice was greater than the public interest of disclosing the information as required by the said Article 13. In addition, the State’s assertion that the role of controlling Government entities is the exclusive competence of Congress is “unsustainable”; and (h) “The Chilean State did not guarantee the right of the [alleged] victims of access to information because a State entity refused access to information without proving that it was included in one of the legitimate exceptions to the general rule of disclosure established in Article 13. Also, when the facts that gave rise to this application occurred, the State did not have mechanisms to ensure the right of access to information effectively.” The arguments of the alleged victims’ representative: