-3659. Regarding the alleged violation of Article 13 of the Convention, in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 thereof, the representative stated that: (a) The State refused to provide the alleged victims with information it held without giving any reason. The State justified this refusal before the Court by the fact that there was a legal vacuum as regards the confidentiality of the information companies provided to the Foreign Investment Committee. This reason violates the presumption of the maximum disclosure of information and the principles of proportionality and need imposed on restrictions to the right to freedom of expression. The failure to provide the information was decided without prior consultation with the company eventually affected by the disclosure of the information, and the State did not demonstrate to the Court the extent to which the requested information might have affected the rights of Forestal Trillium Ltda. or the State’s foreign investment promotion policy; (b) It has been shown that the Foreign Investment Committee is supposed to investigate foreign investors. By reserving to itself the assessment of investors, the State failed to guarantee to society the corporate credibility of the investors and their investment; (c) The implicit recognition of the failure to investigate and the refusal of information by the Committee violate the right of access to information included in the right to freedom of expression, because, in sensitive areas that affect the country’s natural resources, public interest requires the State to adopt additional and complementary protection measures designed to ensure the suitability and soundness of those who invest in the country. The State has the positive obligation to generate and disclose public information so as to encourage democratic debate and control by civil society; and (d) The legislative measures taken by the State do not exempt it from international responsibility, because the failure to provide a response and to disclose the information on the suitability of the foreign investor, and also the denial of justice by the national courts, are consummated facts that violate rights embodied in the Convention. Also, even though the constitutional reform that tacitly annulled the 2001 regulations on secrecy and confidentiality was a step forward, it was incomplete; it hinders, restricts and limits the exercise of the right of access to public information and includes grounds for restrictions that are incompatible with Article 13 of the Convention. This reform and also the one that is currently being discussed in Congress do not recognize the right of access to information as an element of the right to freedom of expression as established in Article 13 of the American Convention, but rather as “an element expressing the general interest of the principles of disclosure and probity.” The State’s arguments 60. Regarding the alleged violation of Article 13 of the Convention, in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 thereof, the State indicated that: (a) In relation to the alleged refusal of information by the Foreign Investment Committee with regard to sections 6 and 7 of the request, it is evident from the testimony of Mr. Moyano Berríos and Mr. Mayorca that the Committee did not have that information;