36. The legislative measure of recurso de fiscalización is only open to representatives in the Chilean Cámara de Diputados. Petitioners consider that the fact that one of the victims was a representative does not make him responsible for seeking the remedy. Petitioners argue that they all appear before the inter-American system as human beings, and their other activities do not impose further obligations with respect to exhaustion of domestic remedies. 37. The administrative measure of recurso de reposición is established in Article 9 of Chilean Law Nº 18.575, which says: "Administrative acts may be challenged through the means established by law. A reposición may be filed before the same entity that carried out the challenged act and when necessary, it may be appealed before the corresponding higher authority, without prejudice to other procedures that may exist." ("Los actos administrativos serán impugnables mediante los recursos que establezca la ley. Se podrá siempre interponer el de reposición ante el mismo órgano del que hubiere emanado el acto respectivo y, cuando proceda, el recurso jerárquico, ante el superior correspondiente, sin perjuicio de las acciones jurisdiccionales a que haya lugar") (emphasis added).First, the petitioners argue that in this case, there was no administrative resolution at all, since the State never refused to respond or justified its omission. Thus, a remedy that requires an "administrative act" was a juridical impossibility. The petitioners also note that Chilean courts do not themselves require the recurso de reposición administrativa as a prerequisite to exercise judicial actions or to make final decisions in the courts of law. Finally, petitioners explain that this remedy requires only a request in writing that is presented in respectful terms, and the letters sent on June 3 and July 2, 1998 were themselves presented in formal and respectful terms, thus fulfilling the only requirements for the recurso de reposición administrativa. B. Position of the State 1. Arguments regarding the characterization of a violation 38. The State argues that the Vice-President of the Committee on Foreign Investment complied with his obligations under Article 13 by providing some of the information requested by petitioners. The three requests that were not granted should be seen as confidential, according to the State, because they are related to characteristics of the Committee itself and its manner of exercising its private functions.The State also considers that the requests indicate a suspicion of negligence on the part of the Committee. It argues that any attempt at oversight (fiscalización) of government functions should be performed by the Cámara de Diputados, which is empowered to perform a recurso de fiscalización under the Chilean Constitution. 39. In the State's view, the requested information must be considered confidential because "reservation of information in this type of company constitutes a cornerstone of constitutional economic guarantees and Chilean foreign investment policy." ("la debida reserva en este tipo de empresas constituye una de las piezas angulares en materia de garantías constitucionales económicas y de la política chilena de inversión extranjera.") The State argues that the release of said information would constitute arbitrary discrimination against the investors. Finally, the State considers that as a private organization without express legal faculties, Fundación Terram has no right to confidential information.