-27explicitly described in Article 20. The application for protection shall be admissible also in the case of Article 19(8), when the right to live in an uncontaminated environment shall be affected by an arbitrary or illegal act that can be attributed to a specific authority or individual.” In addition, this Article 20 also establishes that the said court “shall adopt forthwith the measures it deems necessary to re-establish the rule of law and ensure the due protection of the person affected, without prejudice to other rights that may be claimed before the corresponding courts or authority.”37 57(25) On July 29, 1998, the Santiago Court of Appeal delivered a ruling in which it declared the application for protection that had been filed inadmissible, because “from the facts described […] and from the background information attached to the application, it is clearly without grounds.” In addition, the Court of Appeal stated that it had taken into consideration that “the purpose of the application for protection is to re-establish the rule of law when this has been disrupted by arbitrary or illegal acts or omissions that threaten, interfere with or deny the legitimate exercise of some of the guarantees specifically listed in Article 20 of the Constitution of the Republic, without prejudice to any other legal proceedings.” This ruling does not contain any justification other than the one indicated above, and mentions that it is adopted “under the provisions of No. 2 of the Supreme Court’s Unanimous Judicial Decision [published on] June 9, [1998].”38 57(26) The Unanimous Judicial Decision of the Supreme Court of Chile “concerning the processing of the application for protection of constitutional guarantees” issued on June 24, 1992, was modified by “Unanimous Judicial Decision concerning the processing of and ruling on the application for protection” of May 4, 1998, published on June 9, 1998. In section No. 2 of the latter, the Supreme Court agreed that “the Court shall examine whether it has been filed opportunely and whether it has sufficient merit to admit it for processing. If, in the unanimous opinion of its members, the presentation is time-barred or suffers from a clear lack of justification, it shall declare it inadmissible by a summary decision, which shall not be susceptible to any type of appeal, except that of an appeal for reconsideration of judgment before the same court.”39 57(27) On July 31, 1998, the alleged victims’ lawyer filed an appeal for reconsideration of judgment before the Santiago Court of Appeal, in which he requested the Court “to reconsider the ruling of […] July 29, [1998 …] annulling it, and declaring the [application for protection] admissible.”40 In this appeal, in addition to presenting the legal arguments concerning the alleged violation of the right of access to the requested information, he stated that the ruling did not contain a detailed justification of the declaration of inadmissibility and “was not consistent with the provisions of section No. 2 of the Unanimous Judicial Decision concerning the processing of and ruling on the application for protection, which established that “the declaration of inadmissibility must be ‘summarily justified.’” In the appeal, the said lawyer indicated that the declaration of 37 Cf. Constitution of the Republic of Chile of August 8, 1980 (helpful evidence incorporated by the InterAmerican Court, available at http:/www.bcn.cl/pags/legislación/leyes/constitución_politica.htm). 38 Cf. Ruling of the Santiago Court of Appeal of July 29, 1998 (file of appendixes to the application, appendix 4, folio 73). 39 Cf. Decision of the Supreme Court of Chile “concerning the processing of the application for protection of constitutional guarantees” issued on June 24, 1992; and decision of the Supreme Court of Chile “concerning the processing of and ruling on the application for protection” issued on May 4, 1998 (file before the Commission, Volume II, folios 1039 to 1050). 40 Cf. Appeal for reconsideration of judgment filed by the alleged victims’ lawyer before the Santiago Court of Appeal on July 31, 1998 (file of appendixes to the application, appendix 5, folio 76).