68 IX RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF THOUGHT AND EXPRESSION, FAIR TRAIL [JUDICIAL GUARANTEES]) AND JUDICIAL PROTECTION, IN RELATION WITH THE OBLIGATION TO RESPECT RIGHTS AND THE OBLIGATION TO UNDERTAKE DOMESTIC LEGAL EFFECTS 183. The Court, in order to determine whether the State is responsible for the alleged violations of Article 13,257 8(1), and 25, in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2, all of the American Convention, it will synthesize the arguments of the parties, establish the facts it considers proven, and will make the appropriate considerations on the judicial procedures and the normative framework related to the right to seek and receive information. A. Arguments of the parties 184. The Inter-American Commission held that in the present case there is an undue restriction on the right to access information, given that: a) there is no legitimate interest in reserving information related to gross violations of human rights; the State has not proven a current, imperative or obligatory purpose in order to maintain as restricted the information required by the victims, and disclosure of information cannot impose certain, objective, serious and present harm to national security; b) the next of kin’s lack of knowledge of the truth and the continued lack of information is a situation “comparable to torture”; c) the State could never deny access to information to judges or autonomous organs of investigation that could verify the legitimate objective of the restriction, and d) freedom of expression and access to information contribute to the guarantee to the truth, to justice, and to reparation, thus avoiding new gross human rights violations from arising. In addition, the various laws and decrees that have governed the right to access to information in Brazil do not comply with the standards established by the Inter-American System given that the scope and contents of the right to access to information are regulated by provisions of an administrative nature and none of the regulations of this right define or limit the causes of restriction. And also, said regulations: a) do not include administrative procedures that assure the appropriate processing and resolution of requests for information, the terms to answer, nor the possibility to contest the denial of the provision of information with a quick and effective remedy; b) do not contemplate the obligation to appropriately found the reasons for denying requests for information, and c) contemplate periods of unlawful restriction. Moreover, States have the positive obligation to produce and conserve information, to which they are obligated to implement measures that permit the custody, management, and access to records or archives. Given the aforementioned, the Inter-American Commission requested the Court to declare the State responsible for the violation of Article 13 of the Convention, in conjunction with Articles 1(1) and 2 of the same instrument, and to order the State to reform its domestic legal regime so as to be in conformity with Article 2, in relation with Article 13 of the American Convention. On the other hand, in regard to the Ordinary Action 82.00.24682-5, 257 Article 13 of the American Convention, in what is relevant, establishes: 1. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought and expression. This right includes freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing, in print, in the form of art, or through any other medium of one's choice. 2. The exercise of the right provided for in the foregoing paragraph shall not be subject to prior censorship but shall be subject to subsequent imposition of liability, which shall be expressly established by law to the extent necessary to ensure: a. respect for the rights or reputations of others; or b. the protection of national security, public order, or public health or morals.