-47105. The representative alleged that Chile had violated Article 23 of the Convention, in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 thereof, an opinion that does not appear in the application lodged by the Commission. The representative stated that: (a) The State violated the right to participate directly in public affairs, because this is not legally recognized in Chile. To be effective, it is essential that citizens can also exercise the right to accede to public information, since these two rights “converge, legitimate and sustain the right of social control”; (b) “The unjustified refusal to provide the requested information regarding the name of the investor, his suitability and soundness, represents an evident violation of the right to participate in government, by hindering the alleged victims’ participation in the public debate on a relevant aspect of foreign investment of public interest concerning the exploitation of the country’s natural resources”; and (c) The State violated the general obligations established in Articles 1 and 2 of the American Convention because it lacked practices and measures to promote the exercise of the general right to citizen participation and because it did not have specific legal recourses to protect this. 106. The State did not submit arguments on the alleged violation of Article 23 of the American Convention. The Court’s findings 107. The Court will not examine the alleged violation of Article 23 of the Convention because it has already taken into consideration the arguments made by the representative in this respect when examining the violation of Article 13 of the American Convention. IX VIOLATION OF ARTICLES 8 AND 25 (RIGHTS TO A FAIR TRIAL AND TO JUDICIAL PROTECTION) OF THE CONVENTION IN RELATION TO ARTICLE 1(1) THEREOF 108. The Commission did not allege any violation of Article 8 of the Convention. However, regarding Article 25, in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 thereof, it stated that: (a) The absence of an effective judicial recourse to repair the violation of rights protected by the Convention constitutes a violation thereof. For the recourse to be effective, the judicial body must assess the merits of the complaint; and (b) The State is obliged to provide an effective judicial recourse for alleged violations of the right of access to information. Chile did not grant this recourse to the alleged victims in this case, because “Chilean justice never attempted, even superficially, to determine the rights of the victims,” “nor has it ensured an appropriate mechanism or procedure for an individual who requests information to have access to an independent and effective regulatory judicial body to ensure his right of access to information.”