78 would be materially impossible, given the work carried out in the framework of the mentioned Law.310 205. In its judgment of June 30, 2003, the Federal Judge of First Instance noted that “[i]t is still not [appropriate to] discuss the loss of object of the present action in regard to those that were contemplated in the proceeding of Law [No.] 9.140/95,”311 given that “the administrative procedure established by [this law] is not able to satisfy the pretension of the actors, because it deals with a broad request that encompasses fundamental rights such as the right to the truth, or to the protection of the family, or the right to offer those deceased, in honor of tradition, a dignified eternal burial.”312 It added that the information provided to date, “corroborates with the information provided in the orders by the actors, supports their arguments and confirms their doubts. Various of them are the testimonies of the existence of the Guerrilla and of the massacre of the members of the Guerrilla, and there is no way of ignoring said reality.”313 206. As well, in the same judgment, the Judge highlighted that it is not appropriate to deny the historical importance of the facts of the case and that “[t]imes such as those, of […] systematic violation of fundamental rights, should not be forgotten or ignored.” 314 It indicated that “the information [presented] by the [Union] is the information that allows access of the authors to the bodily remains of their family members” and that “[i]f the State apparatus acts in a manner that the violations of human rights remain in impunity and the victim is not repaired (to the extent possible) in the full exercise of their rights, the State violates the conventional obligation in the international forum.”315 It noted that the facts which reference the Ordinary Action constitute “serious violations to human rights” and, in applying the jurisprudence of this Court, it determined that the truth of what occurred must be shared with the next of kin in a detailed manner given that it is their right to know what really took place.316 As a consequence of the foregoing, the Federal Judge of First Instance requested the Union to lift the secrecy and present all information regarding the military operations related to the Guerrilla.317 207. On August 27, 2003, the Federal State, by means of the Attorney General’s Office, filed an appeal against the mentioned decision, wherein, inter alia, it questioned the waiver of the secrecy of said information and reiterated that the request of the petitioners was being attended to via Law No. 9.140/95.318 310 The Federal Judge of First Instance issued a judgment on March 15, 2000, wherein it rejected a request by the Union made in its brief of April 9, 1999, and noted that “[given] the requirement of said report […] the Authority did not attend to said order, arguing that the [documents] were already in the hands of the [Attorney General of the Republic]. As such, the former Minister of the Army did not deny the existence of said report, as was done by the [Union]”; based on this, it gave a period of 30 days to the Union to present a report. Cf. Decision of the Federal Judge of First Instance of March 15, 2000 (case file of annexes to the application, tome I, annex 19, folio 126). 311 Federal Judge of First Instance of June 30, 2003, supra note 267, folio 164. 312 Federal Judge of First Instance of June 30, 2003, supra note 267, folio 146. 313 Federal Judge of First Instance of June 30, 2003, supra note 267, folio 144. 314 Federal Judge of First Instance of June 30, 2003, supra note 267, folio 144. 315 Federal Judge of First Instance of June 30, 2003, supra note 267, folios 145 and 149. 316 Cf. Federal Judge of First Instance of June 30, 2003, supra note 267, folios 152 and 162. 317 Cf. Federal Judge of First Instance of June 30, 2003, supra note 267, folio 178. 318 Cf. Partial appeal of August 27, 2003, supra note 268, folio 195.