Integrating Human Rights in the Anti-Corruption Agenda - The ICHRP

a justification when, for any reason permitted by the Convention,
the State is allowed to restrict access to the information in a
specific case. The information should be provided without the
need to prove direct interest or personal involvement in order
to obtain it, except in cases in which a legitimate restriction is
applied. The delivery of information to an individual can, in turn,
permit it to circulate in society, so that the latter can become
acquainted with it, have access to it, and assess it. In this way,
the right to freedom of thought and expression includes the
protection of the right of access to State-held information, which
also clearly includes the two dimensions, individual and social,
of the right to freedom of thought and expression that must be
guaranteed simultaneously by the State. 20
In addition to underlining the general obligation of states to respect the right
to information, the decision is significant because, in line with human rights
practice, it requires governments to provide mechanisms that will ensure the
right to information can be exercised in practice. In this regard, it is important to
highlight certain elements of this decision:
▪
▪
▪
▪
The right to request information may not be hindered in any way and may not
be refused on the grounds that the requesting party has no demonstrable
interest in knowing the information in question.
A corresponding right exists to receive the information (subject to limited
exemptions).
The state has an obligation to reply to every request, whether it provides the
information requested or (in limited cases) refuses to do so.
The right to freedom of expression cannot be considered fully respected
where the right to obtain information from the government is not
recognised.
20 Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Claude Reyes et al. v. Chile, Judgment of
19 September 2006, paragraph 77. This landmark case, a relatively simple one,
concerned a request for information regarding a decision of the Chilean government
to allow a United States company to conduct logging operations in an area of native
forest. The company was known to have a poor environmental record, and there
were suspicions that the government had failed to conduct proper background
checks before issuing the permit. The case thus combined the right to information
with the right to environmental protection and possible government wrongdoing.
(The project was eventually stopped following actions by environmental activists,
including a Supreme Court challenge.) The Chilean government had failed to answer
a request, filed in 1998, for a copy of a report that should have been produced before
the US company was granted a logging permit; even in court the government failed
to clarify whether or not this document existed.
Integrating Human Rights in the Anti-Corruption Agenda: Challenges, Possibilities and Opportunities 17