-40provided to them. The State did not present any argument to contest that Mr. Longton Guerrero requested information from the Committee which he has not received. As regards, Sebastián Cox Urrejola, the Court considers that the Commission and the representatives have not established what the information was that he requested from the Foreign Investment Committee which was not given to him; merely that he recently took part in filing an application for protection before the Santiago Court of Appeal (supra para. 57(23)). 71. In view of the above, the Court will examine the violation of Article 13 of the American Convention in relation to Marcel Claude Reyes and Arturo Longton Guerrero, since it has been proved that they requested information from the Foreign Investment Committee. * Information that was not provided (subject of the dispute) 72. The Court emphasizes that, as has been proved – and acknowledged by the Commission, the representative, and the State – the latter provided information corresponding to four of the seven sections included in the letter of May 7, 1998 (supra para. 57(13), 57(14), 57(15) and 57(19)). 73. The Court considers it evident that the information the State failed to provide was of public interest, because it related to the foreign investment contract signed originally between the State and two foreign companies and a Chilean company (which would receive the investment), in order to develop a forestry exploitation project that caused considerable public debate owing to its potential environmental impact (supra para. 57(7)). In addition, this request for information concerned verification that a State body the Foreign Investment Committee – was acting appropriately and complying with its mandate. 74. This case is not about an absolute refusal to release information, because the State complied partially with its obligation to provide the information it held. The dispute arises in relation to the failure to provide part of the information requested in sections 3, 6 and 7 of the said letter of May 7, 1998 (supra para. 57(13) and 57(17)). * A) * * Right to freedom of thought and expression 75. The Court’s case law has dealt extensively with the right to freedom of thought and expression embodied in Article 13 of the Convention, by describing its individual and social dimensions, from which it has deduced a series of rights that are protected by this Article.72 72 Cf. . Case of López Álvarez. Judgment of February 1, 2006. Series C No. 141, para. 163; . Case of Palamara Iribarne. Judgment of November 22, 2005. Series C No. 135, para. 69; . Case of Ricardo Canese. Judgment of August 31, 2004. Series C No. 111, paras. 77-80; . Case of Herrera Ulloa. Judgment of July 2, 2004. Series C No. 107, paras. 108-111; . Case of Ivcher Bronstein. Judgment of February 6, 2001. Series C No. 74, paras. 146–149; . Case of “The Last Temptation of Christ” (Olmedo Bustos et al.). Judgment of February 5, 2001. Series C No. 73, paras. 64-67; and Compulsory Membership in an Association Prescribed by Law for the Practice of Journalism (Arts. 13 and 29 American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-5/85 of November 13, 1985. Series A No. 5, paras. 30-33 and 43.