84 in the alleged non-existence of said information, and then, in the alleged loss of the purpose of said action given the enactment of Law No. 9.140/95. 227. Given the lack of application in the present case of laws and decrees mentioned by the Commission and the representatives in the Ordinary Action filed by the next of kin, the Court does not deem it necessary to carry out an analysis of the existent regulations in Brazil on the right to access information. Notwithstanding the aforementioned, the Court notes that the State informed on the Draft Bill No. 5.228/09, presented by the Executive Power before the National Congress, which would substantially reform the normative framework that regulates this right. Said draft bill establishes, inter alia, that “access to information necessary for the legal and administrative protection of fundamental rights cannot be denied” and that “access to information or documents that discuss actions that imply violations of human rights practiced by public agents or mandates of public authorities cannot be subject to restrictions.”332 For their part, the representatives spoke positively on the same, indicating that said draft bill “is welcome” and that its adoption by the National Congress should be done quickly. 228. The Court values the initiative of the State to present a draft bill with the purpose of optimizing and strengthening the normative framework of the right to freedom of thought and expression established in Article 13 of the American Convention in relation to the right to access public information in State custody. The Court considers that the States, so as to appropriately guarantee right to seek and receive public information under State control, must adopt the necessary measures, among others, the approval of legislation wherein the content is compatible with Article 13 of the American Convention and with the jurisprudence of this Tribunal. Likewise, this right entails the obligation of the State to incorporate in its legal code an effective and suitable remedy that can be used by the citizenry and to resolve eventual controversies. 229. Of course, the right to access to public information in State custody is not an absolute right, given that it may be subject to restrictions. Nevertheless, these must first be previously established by law—in a formal and material sense—so as to assure that they not be subject to the discretion of the public power. Second, the restrictions established by law must respond to an objective allowed in Article 13(2) of the American Convention, namely, they must be necessary to assure “the respect for the rights and reputation of others” or “the protection of national security, public order, or public health or morals.” The limitations imposed must be necessary in a democratic society and oriented to satisfy an imperative public interest. This implies that from all the possible alternatives there must be elected those measures that restrict or interfere in the most minimal possible manner the effective exercise of the right to seek and receive information.333 230. Moreover, to guarantee the full and effective exercise of this right, it is necessary that the legislation and the State procedures are governed by the principles of good faith and maximum disclosure, in a way that all information in State power is presumed public and accessible, subject to a limited regime of exceptions. Likewise, all denials of information must be motivated and founded, 332 Article 16 of Bill No. 5228/09 that regulates access to information, of May 5, 2009 (brief of annexes to the answer to the application, tome III, annex 18, folio 366). 333 Cf. Advisory Opinion OC-5/85, supra note 294, para. 46; Case of Ricardo Canese v. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 31, 2004. Series C No. 111, para. 96, and Case of Palamara Iribarne v. Chile. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 22, 2005. Series C No. 135, para. 85.