society to respond to public decisions about investments related to the use of natural resources. 27. The Vice President of the Committee on Foreign Investment met with the petitioners on May 19, 1998 and later sent a fax to the president of Fundación Terram, Marcel Claude Reyes. The State claims that certain substantive information was delivered during these communications, while petitioners claim that the meeting was of a procedural nature and lacked substantive content. However, all parties agree that the government never answered certain questions that had been posed by petitioners (later asserting that the information should be considered confidential). The following requests for information are those that did not receive any response: - Precedents that the Committee on Foreign Investment was aware of, in Chile and abroad, to assure the seriousness and legitimacy of the investors, and the agreements of said Committee in which they took those precedents as sufficient. - Information that is under the power of the Committee and/or has been demanded from other public or private entities which refers to the control of the obligations that come with titles to foreign investment or the companies in which they participate, and whether the Committee has taken note of any infraction or crime. -Information about whether the Executive Vice-President of this Committee has exercised the authority granted by Article 15a of the D.L. 600, by requesting, from all of the Services or businesses from the public and private sector, the reports and precedents required for the completion of the goals of the Committee. In the event that he did, put this information at the disposition of this Foundation. 28 The petitioners sent letters reiterating their request to the Committee on June 3 and July 2. On July 27, 1998, the three victims presented a recurso de protección (an ordinary Constitutional remedy to address State violations of certain human rights) before the Santiago Appeals Court. The petitioners claimed that the State had violated the victims' right to freedom of expression and access to state-held information guaranteed by Article 19, Nº 12 of the Chilean Constitution, in relation to Article 5, Nº 2 of the Chilean Constitution; Article 13(1) of the American Convention; and Article 19(2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. On July 29, the Court declared this action inadmissible due to a lack of foundation (manifiesta falta de fundamento). 29. On July 31, 1998, the petitioners presented a recurso de reposición, which is an ordinary action under the Civil Procedure Code, to obtain the reversal or modification of a tribunal's decision. On August 6, the Court declared that it would not grant the requested reposition (la Corte "no dio lugar a la reposición solicitada"). 30. On July 31, 1998, the petitioners also presented a recurso de queja before the Supreme Court. This is an extraordinary remedy to correct grave abuses committed via jurisdictional resolutions, and it was declared inadmissible on August 18. 1. Arguments regarding the characterization of a violation