-48109. The alleged victims’ representative submitted his arguments on the alleged violations of Articles 8 and 25, in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 of the Convention together; therefore, this is how they are summarized below: (a) The Santiago Court of Appeal did not hear the appellant’s petition, and declared it inadmissible “without providing any type of reasoning on how it reached this conclusion”; that decision was ratified by the Supreme Court. This “declaration of the inadmissibility of the recourse prevented the victims from being heard with due guarantees in order to protect the alleged right; (b) In his final arguments, he stated that the State had failed to comply with the provisions of Articles 1 and 2 of the Convention, since the formal procedure for processing the judicial recourse for the protection of fundamental rights established in Article 20 of the Chilean Constitution is not incorporated into the system by law as the Convention requires, but by a decision of the Supreme Court. The Judiciary’s practice reveals a restrictive application of the criteria on the admissibility of this recourse. He requested the Court to declare that the decision taken by the Supreme Court of Justice regulating the said recourse “violates Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention”. 110. The State did not refer to the alleged violation of Article 8 of the American Convention, but in relation to Article 25 indicated that: (a) Article 25 of the Convention “imposes on the State an obligation concerning means rather than results.” As of 1999, Chile has had a remedy of habeas data that offers the necessary guarantees to obtain access to public information.” This recourse may be filed at any time; consequently, the alleged victims, could have filed it, if they were denied information; and (b) The alleged victims, “including Deputy Arturo Longton,” also had another domestic recourse that they could have filed before the Chamber of Deputies. They announced that they would file it, but never did so, despite its effectiveness. Using this recourse, any deputy “could, during the time devoted to motions, request specific reports or information from body of the State Administration through the Secretariat of the Chamber of Deputies.” The Court’s findings 111. Regarding the alleged violation of Article 8 of the Convention, the Court reiterates its case law concerning the possibility of the alleged victims or their representatives invoking rights other than those included in the Commission’s application.93 112. The proven facts (supra para. 57(12) to 57(17) and 57(23) to 57(30)) have established that the Executive Vice President of the Foreign Investment Committee (in the administrative sphere) and the Santiago Court of Appeal (in the judicial sphere) adopted decisions on the request for access to State-held information by Mr. Claude Reyes and Mr. Longton Guerrero. 93 Cf. Case of Acevedo Jaramillo et al.. Judgment de February 7, 2006. Series C No. 144, para. 280; Case of López Álvarez, supra note 72, para. 82; and . Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre. Judgment of January 31, 2006. Series C No. 140, para. 54.