70 Ordinary Action 82.00.24682-5, wherein, in December 2009, it presented a request informing the Rapporteur Judge the loss of purpose of the remedy. B. Facts related to access to information 187. Some next of kin of the members of the Guerrilha do Araguaia have promoted, since 1982, actions of a non-criminal nature in order to establish the circumstances of the enforced disappearances, the localization of the bodily remains, as well as to access to official documents on the military operations in the region. On its behalf, the Federal Public Prosecutor’s Office also established actions of a civil nature with similar objectives. 1. Ordinary Action No. 82.00.24682-5 i. Prior facts to the jurisdiction ratione temporis of the Court 188. On February 19, 1982, 22 family members of 25 disappeared persons of the Guerrilla, initiated a lawsuit of a civil nature against the Federal State before the First Federal Court of the Federal District (hereinafter “First Federal Court”), requesting the Union to report on the burial of their next of kin, in such a way as to allow for the issuance of death certificates, the transport of the bodily remains, and the provision of the official report of the Ministry of War of January 5, 1975 on the military operations of war against the Guerrilha do Araguaia.258 189. On March 27, 1989, the action was rejected without an evaluation of the merits, given that the request was “legally and materially impossible to fulfill.”259 Due to the filing of a motion for appeal by the plaintiffs,260 the Federal Regional Court of the First Region (hereinafter, “the Federal Regional Court”) reversed said judgment on October 1993, and ordered that the procedural instructions be carried out so as to judge the merits of the cause.261 190. Between March 1994 and April 1996, the Union filed three remedies and the competent tribunals rejected all.262 Therefore, on June 22, 1998, the 258 Cf. Initial Petition of the Ordinary Action (Ação Ordinária para Prestação de Fato), Action No. 82.00.24682-5, of February 19, 1982 (case file of annexes to the brief of pleadings and motions, tome I, annex 1, folios 3835 to 3855). 259 Cf. Judgment of First Federal Court of the Federal District of March 27, 1989 (case file of annexes to the application, tome I, annex 10, folio 70). 260 Cf. Motion for appeal presented by the plaintiffs of April 19, 1989 (case file of annexes to the application, tome I, annex 11, folios 72 to 79). 261 Cf. Decision of the First Chamber of the Federal Regional Tribunal of the First Region published on October 11, 1993 (case file of annexes to the application, tome I, annex 12, folio 80). 262 The first of them was the Remedy of Embargo of Declaration filed by the Union on March 24, 1994, against the Decision of the Federal Regional Tribunal (case file of annexes to the application, tome I, annex 13, folios 81 to 87), which was rejected on March 12, 1996 (case file of annexes to the application, tome I, annex 14, folios 88 to 94), also available on: http://www.trf1.jus.br/Processos/ProcessosTRF/; proceeding 89.01.06733-1, last visited on October 8, 2010. The Union filed, also on April 29, 1996, a Special Remedy (case file of annexes to the application, tome I, annex 15, folios 95 to 96), which was not admitted on November 20, 1996 (case file of annexes to the application, tome I, annex 16, folios 102 and 103). Given the non-admission of the Special Remedy, the Union filed a Tort Action in Special Remedy No. 144015-DF on December 19, 1996. Similarly available on: http://www.trf1.jus.br/Processos/ProcessosTRF/; procedure 89.01.06733-1, last visited on October 8, 2010. Said remedy was not admitted by the Superior Tribunal of Justice on April 22, 1998 (case file of annexes to the application, tome I, annex 23, folio 205), also available on: http://www.stj.jus.br; procedure REsp 873371-DF, last visited on October 8, 2010.