REPORT Nº 60/03 1
October 10, 2003


1. On December 17, 1998, a group consisting of "ONG FORJA," "Fundación Terram,"
the "Clínica Jurídica de Interés Público" of Diego Portales University, and "Corporación
la Morada" (Chilean organizations); the Institute of Legal Defense of Peru (Peruvian
organization); "Fundación Poder Ciudadano" and the Association for Civil Rights
(Argentinean organizations); and Chilean legislative representatives (Diputados) Baldo
Prokurica Prokurica, Osvaldo Palma Flores, Guido Girardi Lavín and Leopoldo Sánchez
Grunert (hereinafter "the petitioners") submitted a petition to the Inter-American
Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter "the Commission" or "the IACHR"). The
complaint alleges violation by the State of Chile of Articles 13 (Freedom of Thought
and Expression), 25 (the Right to Judicial Protection), and 23 (Right to Participate in
Government) in relation to the overall obligations enshrined in Articles 1(1) (Obligation
to Respect Rights) and 2 (Domestic Legal Effects) of the American Convention on
Human Rights (hereinafter "the Convention") to the detriment of Marcel Claude Reyes,
Sebastián Cox Urrejola, and Arturo Longton Guerrero (hereinafter "the victims").
2. The petitioners allege that the State of Chile violated the right to freedom of
expression and free access to state-held information, when the Chilean Committee on
Foreign Investment omitted to release information about a deforestation project the
petitioners wanted to evaluate. Also, the domestic courts' refusal to admit the
subsequent case against the State allegedly constitutes a violation of the right to
judicial protection.
3. The State of Chile argues that the actions of the Committee on Foreign Investment
complied with the requirements of Article 13(1) and the response of the courts was
thus proper. The State also argues that the petitioners failed to exhaust the remedies
available in Chile before their recourse to the Inter-American Commission.
4. After reviewing the positions of the parties in the light of the admissibility
requirements set out in the Convention, the Commission decided to declare the case
admissible as it relates to the alleged violations of Articles 13 and 25 in relation to the
general obligations enshrined in Articles 1 and 2 of the American Convention.


5. The petition was received by the Commission on January 19, 1999. On February 15,
the petitioners requested confirmation of the receipt of their petition and information
about its status. On February 24, 1999, the Commission opened the case as case Nº
12.108, and sent the pertinent portions of the petition to the State, granting it 90 days
to submit its observations.
1 Commissioner José Zalaquett, of Chilean nationality, did not take part in the discussion and voting on the
present report, pursuant to Article 17(2)(a) of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission.

Select target paragraph3