85 to which the State is responsible for the burden of proof on the impossibility of presenting said information, and given doubts or empty legal arguments, the right to access to information will be favored.334 On the other hand, the Court recalls that indicated regarding the obligation of State authorities to not seek protection in mechanisms such as State secrets or confidentiality of information in cases of human rights violations. (supra para. 202). 231. Also, the Court highlights the obligation to guarantee the effectiveness of an appropriate procedure for the processing and resolution of the requests for information, that sets the dates for the resolution and presentation of information, and that this is done under the responsibility of officials that are duly qualified.335 Finally, given the denial of access to determined information under State control, the State must guarantee the existence of a simple, quick, and effective remedy before an independent organ, distinct from the one that denied the request, that can determine if their was a harm to the right to access information, and where applicable, resolve that the corresponding authority present said information.336 X RIGHT TO HUMANE TREATMENT [PERSONAL INTEGRITY] IN RELATION WITH THE OBLIGATION TO RESPECT RIGHTS A. Arguments of the parties 232. The Commission argued that the violation of the psychological and moral integrity of the next of kin is a direct consequence of the enforced disappearances and of the certainty of the death of the executed person. The next of kin, whom carried out the first search expeditions for the disappeared in the region, contest the lack of a criminal investigation of the facts, so as to ascertain the circumstances of the disappearance and the execution of their loved ones, based on the application of the Amnesty Law and other norms that prevent access to official documents. The evidence that, prior to their execution, the disappeared persons were tortured and that some were decapitated, have severely affected the next of kin. In a similar manner, regarding the victim whose bodily remains were identified in 1996, the suffering of the next of kin was aggravated until the identification and continues as the circumstances of the death are unknown and those responsible remain unpunished. The absence, lack of justice and information after the passage of thirty years and the omission of the authorities to act have created a state of anxiety, restlessness, lack of trust, despair, impotence, and anguish for the family members, seriously harming their emotional stability and right to personal integrity. Based on the aforementioned, the Commission argued that the State violated the right to personal integrity enshrined in Article 5 of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of the same treaty, to the detriment of certain next of kin of the alleged disappeared victims and of the executed person. 233. The representatives substantially agreed with the arguments of the Commission, adding that, to date, the next of kin could not recover the bodily remains of their loved ones and give them a proper burial. Adding to this, despite 334 Cf. IACHR. Right to access to information in the Inter-American legal framework, Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression, 2010. 335 Cf. Case of Claude Reyes, supra note 294, para. 163. 336 Cf. Case of Claude Reyes, supra note 294, para. 137.