95 281. In relation to that indicated by the State, the representatives states that following a 2007 study in the General Archive of the University of the Republic that found 32 repositories with documentation of human rights violations (five private and 27 public), which, in regards to access “in 30% of the cases is free and without restrictions, and in 50% of the cases it is restricted, which means, that permission must be requested and the request must be justified, and this can be denied.” In the great majority of the cases, the standards used to allow or deny the request, is not clear.” They noted that the existing legal framework (Law of the National Archive System of 2007, Law of Protection of Personal Information of 2008 and the Law of Access to Public Information of 2008) has not been regulated and a public policy which would comply with international standards has not been designed. Therefore, they requested that the State authorize, without restrictions, the access to the records and other information in the hands of institutions and employees or former employees of the State, with the objective of collaborating with the criminal investigations to clarify the human rights violations.” 282. The Court positively values that there exists a law, which in Uruguay protects the right to access public information, as informed by the State. Although the application of this norm has not been made in favor of the victims in the present case, the Court has noted that one of the limitations to progress with the investigation is the information concerning the serious violations of human rights taken place during the dictatorship which rests in different national security archives that are found to be dispersed and whose control is not adequate. 320 Given that this information could be useful for the employees who execute the judicial investigations concerning the facts of the present case, the State should adopt the appropriate and adequate measures to guarantee the technical and systematical access to this information, means that should be supported by the appropriate assigned budget. iv. Others claims 283. The Commission requested that the State be ordered “[t]o create an effective internal mechanism, with binding legal powers and with authority over all bodies of the State, to ensure full compliance with that ordered in the Court’s judgment.” 284. The State expressed that, in compliance with the constitutional system of Uruguay, the Nation adopt a form of government of a democratic republic; that the Branches of government mentioned in the Constitution are the Executive Branch, the Legislative Branch, and the Judicial Branch, and that, at the same time, each one of them exercises a predominant legal function, be it administrative, legislative, or jurisdictional, which conceptually implies the separation of powers among the different systems in those bodies and the consequences entailed from this form of organization.” It also stated that Uruguay is a country that prides itself on being respectful of International Law as well as of the jurisdictional judgments which is in consonance with its best tradition, thus its commitment to comply with the Court’s judgment in the current case is not in any possible way doubtful; therefore, Uruguay stated that there is no need to create “domestic mechanism[s]” to that effect. 285. The Court finds that the Commission did not support, neither in general terms or given the particularities of this case, in any specific circumstance, its request with                                                          320 Expert Report of Mr. Gerardo Caetano rendered during the public hearing before the InterAmerican Court.