5 to military campaign plans or containing strategies for military missions and hostilities in general, and to allow access to military files. As mentioned by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights in its initial claim of the case under consideration, on April 1982 “The Military Junta of the Government pronounced the ‘National Plan for Security and Development’ which established national objectives in military, administrative, legal, social, economic and political terms.” In this plan, the main areas of conflict in the various departments of the country were identified. The Military Junta and the High Command also designed and ordered the implementation of a military campaign plan called “Victory 82,” in which they used new strategic definitions within the framework of counterinsurgency and the objectives of the National Plan for Security and Development. The Military’s refusal to deliver these and other documents is promoting more impunity in Guatemala. In the case of Mack Chang vs. Guatemala, Judgment of November 25, 2003, paragraph 180, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights asserted that “in cases of human rights violations, State authorities cannot resort to mechanisms such as State Secrets or confidentiality of the information, or reasons of public interest or national security, to refuse to supply the information required by the judicial or administrative authorities in charge of the ongoing investigation or proceeding.” The Inter-American Court of Human Rights has also referred to the “State Secrets” as an obstacle to access information, in particular information that sheds light on human rights violations. Indeed, in the case of Myrna Mack Chang vs. Guatemala, the Court echoed the words of the Inter-American Commission and recognized that “[i]n the framework of a criminal proceeding, especially when it involves the investigation and prosecution of illegal actions attributable to the security forces of the State, there is a possible conflict of interests between the need to protect state secrets, on the one hand, and the obligations of the State to protect individuals from the illegal acts committed by their public agents and to investigate, prosecute, and punish those responsible for said acts, on the other hand.” In this case, the Court was emphatic in asserting that “in cases of human rights violations, the State authorities cannot resort to mechanisms such as State secrets or confidentiality of the information, or reasons of public interest or national security, to avoid providing the information required by the judicial or administrative authorities in charge of the ongoing investigation or proceeding.” In conclusion, the State of Guatemala and specifically the Guatemalan Army are obligated to deliver these and other documents that provide the information necessary to shed light not only on cases such as the Las Dos Erres Massacre, but also other cases of the same gravity, which remain in impunity. International Law recognizes the rights of individuals to receive information, especially relating to acts by the public administration. While the right to access of information is not absolute, all restrictions placed must be clearly established in the law and must respond to an exceptional situation. The State of Guatemala has the duty to fight impunity and, consequently, to remove all obstacles that could unfairly impede or delay the effective investigation and punishment of those responsible for grave human rights violations and crimes under international law and specifically in the case of Las Dos Erres Massacre. Consequently, it cannot invoke “State secrets” to deny information relating to grave human rights violations and crimes under international law. Likewise, the State of Guatemala cannot use “State secrets” as a justification to avoid judicial proceedings from moving forward against those allegedly responsible