Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights Case of Claude-Reyes et al. v. Chile Judgment of September 19, 2006 (Merits, Reparations and Costs) In the Case of Claude Reyes et al., the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Inter-American Court” or “the Court”), composed of the following judges:* Sergio García Ramírez, President Alirio Abreu Burelli, Vice President Antônio A. Cançado Trindade, Judge Cecilia Medina Quiroga, Judge Manuel E. Ventura Robles, Judge, and Diego García-Sayán, Judge; also present, Pablo Saavedra Alessandri, Secretary, and Emilia Segares Rodríguez, Deputy Secretary pursuant to Articles 62(3) and 63(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter “the American Convention” or “the Convention”) and Articles 29, 31, 56 and 58 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court (hereinafter “the Rules of Procedure”), delivers this judgment. I INTRODUCTION OF THE CASE 1. On July 8, 2005, in accordance with the provisions of Articles 50 and 61 of the American Convention, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Commission” or “the Inter-American Commission”) lodged before the Court an application against the State of Chile (hereinafter “the State” or “Chile”). This application originated from petition No. 12,108, received by the Secretariat of the Commission on December 17, 1998. * Judge Oliver Jackman did not take part in the deliberation and signature of this judgment, because he advised that, due to circumstances beyond his control, he would be unable to participate in the seventy-second regular session of the Court. -2- 2. The Commission submitted the application for the Court to declare that the State was responsible for the violation of the rights embodied in Articles 13 (Freedom of Thought and Expression) and 25 (Right to Judicial Protection) of the American Convention, in relation to the obligations established in Articles 1(1) (Obligation to Respect Rights) and 2 (Domestic Legal Effects) thereof, to the detriment of Marcel Claude Reyes, Sebastián Cox Urrejola and Arturo Longton Guerrero. 3. The facts described by the Commission in the application supposedly occurred between May and August 1998 and refer to the State’s alleged refusal to provide Marcel Claude Reyes, Sebastián Cox Urrejola and Arturo Longton Guerrero with all the information they requested from the Foreign Investment Committee on the forestry company Trillium and the Río Condor Project, a deforestation project to be executed in Chile’s Region XII that “c[ould] be prejudicial to the environment and to the sustainable development of Chile.” The Commission stated that this refusal occurred without the State “providing any valid justification under Chilean law” and, supposedly, they “were not granted an effective judicial remedy to contest a violation of the right of access to information”; in addition, they “were not ensured the rights of access to information and to judicial protection, and there were no mechanisms guaranteeing the right of access to public information.” 4. The Commission requested that, pursuant to Article 63(1) of the Convention, the Court order the State to adopt specific measures of reparation indicated in the application. Lastly, it requested the Court to order the State to pay the costs and expenses arising from processing the case in the domestic jurisdiction and before the body of the inter-American system. II JURISDICTION 5. The Court is competent to hear this case, in the terms of Articles 62 and 63(1) of the Convention, because Chile has been a State Party to the American Convention since August 21, 1990, and accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court on the same date. III PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION 6. On December 17, 1998, a group composed of the “Clínica Jurídica de Interés Público” of the Universidad Diego Portales; the Chilean organizations “FORJA,” the “Terram Foundation” and “Corporación la Morada”; the Instituto de Defensa Legal of Peru; the “Fundación Poder Ciudadano” and the Asociación para los Derechos Civiles (Argentine organizations); and Baldo Prokurica Prokurica, Oswaldo Palma Flores, Guido Girardo Lavín and Leopoldo Sánchez Grunert, submitted a petition to the Commission. 7. On October 10, 2003, the Commission adopted Report No. 60/03 declaring the case admissible. On November 11, 2003, the Commission made itself available to the parties in order to reach a friendly settlement. 8. On March 7, 2005, pursuant to Article 50 of the Convention, the Commission adopted Report No. 31/05, in which it concluded that Chile had “violated the rights of Marcel Claude Reyes, Sebastián Cox Urrejola and Arturo Longton Guerrero of access to -3- public information and to judicial protection established in Articles 13 and 25 of the American Convention, respectively, in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 of the Convention, by denying them access to information held by the Chilean Foreign Investment Committee and by not granting them access to Chilean justice to contest this refusal.” The Commission recommended to the State that it should “disclose the information requested by Marcel Claude Reyes, Sebastián Cox Urrejola and Arturo Longton Guerrero”; “[g]rant adequate reparation to Marcel Claude Reyes, Sebastián Cox Urrejola and Arturo Longton Guerrero for the violation of their rights, including providing them with the requested information”; and “[a]dapt its domestic laws to Article 13 of the American Convention regarding access to information and adopt the necessary measures to establish practices and mechanisms that guarantee effective access to public information and information of public interest to the people of Chile.” 9. On April 8, 2005, the Commission forwarded this report to the State and granted it two months from the date of transmittal to provide information on the measures adopted to comply with the recommendations made therein. 10. On April 8, 2005, the Commission informed the petitioners that it had adopted the report under Article 50 of the Convention and granted them one month to advise it of their position as regards submitting the case to the Court. 11. On June 8, 2005, the State requested an extension to inform the Commission about compliance with the recommendations contained in Report No. 31/05. The Commission granted it an extension until June 23, 2005. 12. On June 15, 2005, the petitioners presented a communication to the Commission expressing their interest in the Commission submitting the case to the Court’s consideration. 13. On June 30, 2005, the State sent a report to the Commission in response to the recommendations made in Report on Merits No. 31/05 (supra para. 8). Chile also forwarded a copy of the foreign investment contracts and assignment contracts relating to the “Río Condor” Project. 14. On July 1, 2005, “in the understanding that the State had not adopted its recommendations satisfactorily,” the Commission decided to submit the case to the Court’s consideration. IV PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT 15. On July 8, 2005, the Inter-American Commission submitted the application to the Court, attaching documentary evidence and offering testimonial and expert evidence. The Commission appointed Evelio Fernández Arévalo, Santiago A. Canton and Eduardo Bertoni as delegates and Ariel Dulitzky, Victor H. Madrigal-Borloz, Christina M. Cerna and Lisa Yagel as legal advisers (infra para. 22). 16. On August 4, 2005, after the President of the Court (hereinafter “the President”) had made a preliminary review of the application, pursuant to the provisions of Article 35(1)(b) of the Rules of Procedure, the Secretariat of the Court (hereinafter “the Secretariat”) notified it, together with the appendixes, to the State informing the latter of -4- the time limits for answering the application and appointing its representatives in the proceedings. 17. On August 4, 2005, the Secretariat, pursuant to the provisions of Article 35(1)(e) of the Rules of Procedure, notified the application and its appendixes to Juan Pablo Olmedo Bustos, representative of the alleged victims (hereinafter “the representative”), informing him of the time limit for presenting his brief with requests, arguments and evidence (hereinafter “requests and arguments brief”). 18. On August 5, 2005, the State submitted a brief in which it requested the Court “to consider the information provided opportunely to the Inter-American Commission[, in communications of June 30, 2005 (supra para. 13) and July 8, 20051, when making the preliminary examination of the merits of the application for the effects of admissibility.” 19. On August 23, 2005, the State appointed Amira Esquivel Utreras as Agent and Miguel Ángel González Morales as Deputy Agent. 20. On September 28, 2005, the representative forwarded his requests and arguments brief accompanied by documentary evidence, and offered expert evidence. On October 3, 2005, he presented the appendixes to this brief. 21. On December 2, 2005, the State submitted the brief answering the application and with observations on the requests and arguments brief, together with documentary evidence, and offered testimonial and expert evidence. On December 23, 2005, it presented the appendixes to this brief. 22. On January 17, 2006, the Commission submitted a communication accrediting Lilly Ching as legal adviser in this case, in substitution of Lisa Yagel (supra para. 15). 23. On February 7, 2006, the Court issued an order in which it called upon Sebastián Cox Urrejola and Arturo Longton, proposed as witnesses by the Commission, and Andrés Emilio Culagovski