determine whether the State has complied with its positive obligations to guarantee the right to access information related to the attack on the AMIA contained in official files. 1. On the issue of classified information held by the State Intelligence Secretariat, its successor agencies, and the UFI-AMIA 315. First, the Commission recalls that the Inter-American Court indicated in the case of Myrna Mack Chang v. Guatemala that, in the case of human rights violations, “the State authorities cannot resort to mechanisms such as official secret or confidentiality of the information, or reasons of public interest or national security, to refuse to supply the information required by the judicial or administrative authorities in charge of the ongoing investigation or proceeding”284. 316. Likewise, the Commission highlights that according to the jurisprudence of the Inter-American Court, restrictions on the right to access information must be previously established by law and must respond to one of the objectives allowed by Article 13.2 of the American Convention. Additionally, the limitations imposed must be "necessary in a democratic society and aim to satisfy an imperative public interest”285. 317. In the instant case, the Commission emphasizes that, at the time of the attack on the AMIA and until 2001, the actions of the SIDE were regulated by Law 20.195, whose Article 10 provided that “all activities developed by the Secretary of State Information, as well as its organization, functions and documentation are classified in the interest of National Security, as 'Strictly Secret and Confidential ...' 286. As of 2001, this law was replaced by Law 25.520, which provided, among other things, that information classified as secret could only be consulted by the judicial authorities, and they must maintain the strictest secrecy and confidentiality 287. 318. . Coincidentally, the IACHR has verified that the SIDE led -during the investigative phase led by Federal Court 9- numerous operations and secret proceedings that were not promptly known by the petitioners or by the judges who made up the appeal courts. SIDE went further and even strictly denied the existence of some of these activities, thus hiding them from the scrutiny of the judges, the parties to the process, and society as a whole. 319. By way of example, the Commission states that in September 2001 and at the request of TOF 3, intervening in the oral proceedings against the Buenos Aires policemen, the operation to disburse a sum of money to Carlos Telleldín was expressly denied by the authorities from the Secretary of Intelligence288. Only two years later and after the issuance of various decrees that relieved the SIDE agents of their respective obligations to keep operational secrecy, were TOF 3 and all the complainants fully aware of this fact and able to elucidate what had been the origin of the accusation against the policemen indicated as part of the local connection289. (see supra para 196 to 203) 320. Consequently, the Commission understands that, although the restrictions on access to information produced by the State Intelligence Secretariat (SIDE) were established in a legal norm, the Argentine State did not prove how they were necessary, in this case, for the protection of public order or national security. On the contrary, the Commission considers that the existence of a legal regime that establishes the classified nature of I/A Court H.R., Case of Myrna Mack Chang v. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 25, 2003. Series C No. 101, para. 180; I/A Court H.R., Case of Gomes Lund et al. ("Guerrilha do Araguaia") v. Brazil. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 24, 2010. Series C No. 219, para. 202. 285 I/A Court H.R., Case of Gomes Lund et al. ("Guerrilha do Araguaia") v. Brazil. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 24, 2010. Series C No. 219, para. 202.; I/A Court H.R., Case of Claude Reyes et al. v. Chile. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 19, 2006. Series C No. 151, para. 92. 286 Law 20.195 dated February 28, 1973. Available at: http://servicios.infoleg.gob.ar/infolegInternet/verNorma.do?id=119720 287 Law 25.520 dated December 3, 2001, arts. 16 to 18. Available at: http://servicios.infoleg.gob.ar/infolegInternet/annexs/7000074999/70496/norma.htm 288 Annex 2. Judgment of the TOF 3. Title II. Chapter VIII. P. 3585 to 3611. Annex 1 to the petitioner's communication dated November 11, 2019 289 Decree 249/03 dated June 26, 2003. Available at: http://servicios.infoleg.gob.ar/infolegInternet/verNorma.do?id=86364; Decree 291/03 dated July 1, 2003. Available at: http://servicios.infoleg.gob.ar/infolegInternet/annexs/85000-89999/86451/texact.htm and Decree 785/03 dated September 18, 2003. Available at: http://servicios.infoleg.gob.ar/infolegInternet/verNorma.do?id=88545 284 60