-46the requested information, or an answer justifying the restrictions to their right of access to State-held information. * * * 100. The Court appreciates the efforts made by Chile to adapt its laws to the American Convention concerning access to State-held information; in particular, the reform of the Constitution in 2005, which established that the confidentiality or secrecy of information must be established by law (supra para. 57(41), a provision that did not exist at the time of the facts of this case. 101. Nevertheless, the Court considers it necessary to reiterate that, in accordance with the obligation established in Article 2 of the Convention, the State must adopt the necessary measures to guarantee the rights protected by the Convention, which entails the elimination of norms and practices that result in the violation of such rights, as well as the enactment of laws and the development of practices leading to the effective respect for these guarantees. In particular, this means that laws and regulations governing restrictions to access to State-held information must comply with the Convention’s parameters and restrictions may only be applied for the reasons allowed by the Convention (supra paras. 88 to 93); this also relates to the decisions on this issue adopted by domestic bodies. 102. It should be indicated that the violations in this case occurred before the State had made these reforms; consequently, the Court concludes that, in the instant case, the State did not comply with the obligations imposed by Article 2 of the American Convention to adopt the legislative or other measures necessary to give effect to the right to freedom of thought and expression of Marcel Claude Reyes and Arturo Longton Guerrero. * * * 103. Based on the above, the Court finds that the State violated the right to freedom of thought and expression embodied in Article 13 of the American Convention to the detriment of Marcel Claude Reyes and Arturo Longton Guerrero, and failed to comply with the general obligation to respect and ensure the rights and freedoms established in Article 1(1) thereof. In addition, by not having adopted the measures that were necessary and compatible with the Convention to make effective the right of access to State-held information, Chile failed to comply with the general obligation to adopt domestic legal provisions arising from Article 2 of the Convention. VIII ARTICLE 23 (RIGHT TO PARTICIPATE IN GOVERNMENT) OF THE AMERICAN CONVENTION IN RELATION TO ARTICLES 1(1) AND 2 THEREOF 104. The Commission did not allege that Article 23 of the Convention had been violated. The arguments of the alleged victims’ representative: