the positive obligation of the State to provide it, so that the individual may have access to such information or receive an answer that includes a justification when, for any reason permitted by the Convention, the State is allowed to restrict access to the information in a specific case. 175 The law also protects the two dimensions, both the individual and the social, of the right to freedom of thought and expression, which must be simultaneously guaranteed by the State. 176 133. The Court has highlighted the existence of a regional consensus of States that comprise the Organization of American States on the importance of access to public information. The protection of the right to access public information has been the objective behind specific orders issued by the General Assembly of the OAS 177 wherein “[i]t urg[ed] States Parties to respect and ensure the access to public information of all persons and [to promote] the adoption of legal provisions or of another nature that are necessary to assure its recognition and effective application.” 178 Likewise, the General Assembly has recognized that access to public information is an indispensable requirement for the very functioning of democracy, greater transparency, and good governance, and that in a representative and participatory democratic system, citizens exercise their constitutional rights through broad freedom of expression and free access to information. 179 134. The Court has identified as requirements for any restriction on the right of access to information the legal characterization, legitimate objective, and necessity for a democratic society. With regard to the first requirement, it is necessary that the limitation be established in a norm in order to guarantee that it is not left to the discretion of the public authority. In the case of the second requirement, the legitimate objectives of the restriction must be based on Article 13(2) of the Convention, i.e. "respect for the rights or reputations of others," "the protection of national security, public order, or public health or morals.” Finally, the restriction 175 Cf. Case of Claude Reyeset al. v. Chile, supra, para. 77, and Case of Gomes Lund et al. ("Guerrilha do Araguaia") v. Brazil. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 24, 2010. Series C No. 219, para. 197. See also Case of the Kaliña and Lokono Peoples v. Suriname, supra, para. 265. 176 Cf. Case of "The Last Temptation of Christ" (Olmedo Bustos et al.) v. Chile, supra, para. 67, and Case Moya Chacón and v. Costa Rica. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of May 23, 2022. Series C No. 451, para. 62. 177 Cf. Case of Claude Reyeset al. v. Chile, supra, para. 78, and Case of Gomes Lund et al. ("Guerrilha do Araguaia") v. Brazil, supra, para. 198. 178 Cf. OAS General Assembly, AG/RES. 2514 (XXXIX-O/09) of June 4, 2009, on "Access to Public Information: Strengthening Democracy," Second Operative Paragraph. On the other hand, the Model Inter-American Law 2.0 on Access to Public Information of the OAS establishes among its standards that any person who requests information from any public authority must have the right to: a) be informed as to whether or not the documents containing the requested information, or from which such information may be derived, are in the possession of the public authority; (b) if such documents are in the possession of the public authority which received the request, to have such information conveyed promptly; (c) if such documents are not provided to the applicant, appeal the non-delivery of the information; (d) to make requests for information in anonymous form; (e) to request information without having to justify the reasons for which it is requested; (f) not to be subject to any discrimination that may be based on the nature of the request, and (g) to obtain the information free of charge or at a cost not exceeding that generated by the reproduction of the documents. This law must be applicable to any public authority belonging to any of the branches of government (executive, legislative and judicial branches) and to all levels of the governmental structure (central or federal, regional, provincial or municipal). Likewise, the Model Inter-American Law establishes that no public authority should be exempt from the aforementioned requirements, including the legislative and judicial branches, supervisory institutions, intelligence services, armed forces, police, other security forces, heads of State and Government and the dependencies that comprise it. Cf. Model Inter-American Law 2.0 on Access to Public Information, of the Organization of American States. Document OEA/Ser.D/XIX.12.2020, articles 2 and 3. Available at: https://www.oas.org/es/sla/ddi/docs/publicacion_Ley_Modelo_Interamericana_2_0_sobre_Acceso_Informacion_Pu blica.pdf 179 Cf. OAS General Assembly, Resolutions AG/RES. 1932 (XXXIII-O/03) of June 10, 2003; AG/RES. 2057 (XXXIV-O/04) of June 8, 2004; AG/RES. 2121 (XXXV-O/05) of June 7, 2005; AG/RES. 2252 (XXXVI-O/06) of June 6, 2006, AG/RES; AG/RES. 2288 (XXXVII-O/07) of June 5, 2007; AG/RES. 2418 (XXXVIII-O/08) of June 3, 2008, and AG/RES. 2514 (XXXIX-O/09) of June 4, 2009, all on "Access to Public Information: Strengthening Democracy." 41