-34some entities of the State Administration to respond to requests for information made by individuals and, particularly, non-profit organizations.” However, the Committee advised that, in general, the initiative had been “unsuccessful, because the laws in force on this issue assign decisions on conflicts between those requesting information and the requested public service to special administrative-law proceedings. […] Since the decision on whether it is admissible to disclose the public information requested by the individual is reserved to a court, the logical inclination of the heads of service faced with this type of request is to wait until the competent court orders it,” since, this will ensure that “they are exempted from responsibility in case of possible claims by third parties.”70 REGARDING COSTS AND EXPENSES 57(46) The alleged victims and their representative incurred expenses while processing the case before the domestic courts, and also during the international proceedings (infra para. 167). VII VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 13 OF THE AMERICAN CONVENTION REGARDING TO ARTICLES 1(1) AND 2 THEREOF (FREEDOM OF THOUGHT AND EXPRESSION) The Commission’s arguments 58. Regarding the alleged violation of Article 13 of the Convention, regarding Articles 1(1) and 2 thereof, the Commission indicated that: (a) The disclosure of State-held information should play a very important role in a democratic society, because it enables civil society to control the actions of the Government to which it has entrusted the protection of its interests. “Article 13 of the Convention should be understood as a positive obligation on the part of the State to provide access to the information it holds”; this is necessary to avoid abuses by government officials, to promote accountability and transparency within the State, and to allow a substantial and informed public debate that ensures there are effective recourses against such abuses; (b) There is a growing consensus that States have the positive obligation to provide the information they hold to their citizens. “The Commission has interpreted Article 13 to include a right of access to State-held information”; (c) “According to the broad terms of Article 13, the right of access to information should be governed by the ‘principle of maximum disclosure.’” “The burden of proof corresponds to the State, which must demonstrate that restrictions to access to information are compatible with the inter-American Advisory Committee for the Protection of Human Rights (file on merits, reparations, and costs, volume II, folios 554 and 556). 70 Cf. Report issued on February 15, 2006, by the Chairman of the Presidential Advisory Committee for the Protection of Human Rights (file on merits, reparations, and costs, volume II, folios 554 and 556); and written statement made by the expert witness Davor Harasic on March 7, 2006 (file on merits, reparations, and costs, volume II, folios 509 to 518).