-37(b) In relation to the information regarding section 3 of the request, at the time of the facts of this case and actually, the Foreign Investment Committee does not have the physical capacity or the legal powers to investigate the circumstances of the investors. “The role of the Foreign Investment Committee is merely to facilitate and approve flows of foreign capital into Chile.” It is not the Committee’s role “to conduct a prior study to guarantee the technical, legal, financial or economic viability of the economic [investment] projects; this is the task of the investors.” All the background information that the Committee has is provided by the investors themselves. “The petitioners asked the Foreign Investment Committee to provide them with information designed to reveal the possible environmental impact of the forestry project” and the Committee did not have this information since it fell within the jurisdiction of the National Environmental Commission; (c) “When the petitioners submitted their petition (December 1998) and up until 2002, there was no law that regulated the disclosure or confidentiality of the administrative acts of the Foreign Investment Committee or the documents on which such acts were based.” The Committee considered that information relating to third parties and, in general, the specific characteristics of the project were confidential because they constituted private background information that, if made public, “could harm legitimate business interests, and in the absence of a legal source that allowed their disclosure”; (d) It has complied with the recommendations made by the Commission in its Report on Merits; namely, to disclose the information requested by the petitioners, to grant adequate reparation to the petitioners, and to adapt its domestic laws to the terms of Article 13 of the Convention; (e) Regarding the recommendation to disclose the requested information, the Commission refers to providing information in general and, “in its recommendation, omits the information that was handed directly by the Foreign Investment Committee to the alleged victims and which answered four of the seven sections in the request made to this Committee.” “The fact that the project in question was never implemented or executed” signifies that the reasons for requesting the information have disappeared and that compliance with the recommendations “is completely out of context.” Despite the foregoing, on June 30, 2005, the State “forwarded […] to the Commission the foreign investment contracts and the contracts assigning them, in relation to the Río Cóndor project of the Trillium forestry company”; (f) With regard to the Commission’s second recommendation to grant adequate reparation to the petitioners, the State had informed the Commission that it was “considering [..] a reparation of a symbolic nature that would encompass the situation of rights violations of which they were victims, and also publicize the progress made in the area of access to public information [in Chile], in order to adapt its domestic legislation to the terms of Article 13 of the Convention. The nature and characteristics of this symbolic reparation would have been proposed to the Commission and then advised to the petitioners. This did not occur owing to the Commission’s decision to submit the case to the Court’s consideration […].”; (g) Regarding the Commission’s third recommendation, the State has adapted its domestic legislation so that it conforms to the provisions of Article 13 of the