that the same authorities under investigation were the ones who selected, classified, and delivered the requested information. This Court also notes that the orders issued in the Supreme Orders of the First Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court No. 125 and No. 167 were dictated within the process "Public Prosecutor v/ Franz Pizarro et al." However, these decisions were complied with belatedly, in criminal proceedings No. 6441/09. Nor does it appear that the information complying with those orders was sent to the aforementioned criminal proceedings "Public Prosecutor v/ Franz Pizarro Solano et al.," so it can be inferred that the judgment of October 25, 2010, in that process was issued without knowing such information. In addition, in the letter sent by the Command of the Armed Forces, it was indicated that the aforementioned documentation should remain confidential in accordance with article 98 of the Organic Law of the Armed Forces. 148. Then, despite the fact that the judicial orders for the declassification of the information had been complied with, the documentation was not provided in a timely manner, in such a way that the judicial authorities did not have access to it at the time of issuing the cassation judgment in the framework of the criminal process "Public Prosecutor v/ Franz Pizarro Solano et al." In addition, the information provided in criminal proceedings No. 6441/09 was sent to the Appeals Prosecutor of the Office of the Prosecutor General, warning that "documentation is of a SECRET and INVIOLABLE nature," thus restricting the use that could be given to it by the judicial authorities. 196 Although the restriction on access to information was contemplated in the Organic Law of the Armed Forces; 197 State agents did not indicate what objective allowed by the American Convention was intended to protect, therefore, the restriction cannot be considered necessary or proportionate in a democratic society, since it had the effect of excessively affecting the right of access to information of the relatives of disappeared persons, hindering the search for their loved ones and thus prolonging their suffering. To this effect, the restriction of access to information did not comply with conventional parameters. In addition, the military authorities selected the information provided, and current standards require that the decision to define the information as secret and to refuse to submit it can never depend exclusively on a State body whose members are deemed responsible for committing the illegal act. 198 Finally, victims in a case of forced disappearance of persons –in this case the Flores Bedregal sisters– were denied access to the information necessary to clarify the whereabouts of their disappeared relative. B.2.3 Administrative procedure by Ministerial Resolution No. 316/09 149. On June 1, 2009, Verónica Flores Bedregal submitted a request for access to information to the Armed Forces Command in Chief based on Ministerial Resolution No. 316/09. In response to the request, the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces made the request conditional on compliance with the following requirements: 1) demonstrate a legitimate interest in the request for information; 2) specify the dates and details of the required information; 3) establish the ways in which "the secrecy of the information provided will be guaranteed," and 4) comply with the requirements and formalities of law before the competent authority (supra para. 63). 10, 2010, Resolution No. 59/2010, and (c) March 1, 2010, Resolution No. 101/2010. Cf. Resolutions No. 384/2009, No. 59/2010, and No. 101/2010, of the Eighth Magistrate's Court on Precautionary Criminal Matters within the criminal proceedings followed by the Public Prosecutor's Office at the request of victims of Luis García Meza Tejada's dictatorship against the perpetrators (case file of evidence, p. 578-582, 8563-8564, and 8566-8567). 196 Cf. Press release of the Command in Chief of the Armed Forces of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, addressed to the Appeals Prosecutor of the Office of the Prosecutor General, of October 19, 2010, supra. 197 Cf. Organic Law on the Armed Forces, supra. 198 Cf. Case of Myrna Mack Chang v. Guatemala, supra, para. 180, and Case of Movilla Galarcio et al. v. Colombia, supra, para. 159. 45