A. Alleged violation of the right to information 72. The Applicants submit that according to Decree No. 96-884 of 25 October 1996, the loss of customary rights has two components, namely compensation in cash or in kind, on the one hand, and reparation, on the other. They argue that at the time of negotiations for out-of-court settlement, the Respondent State should have informed them that in addition to their right to compensation, they were also entitled to reparation. This, in their view, would have allowed them to better assess their entitlements. The Applicants contend that by failing to inform them of their full rights, the Respondent State violated their right to be informed under Article 9(1) of the Charter. * 73. The Respondent State submits that the obligation to provide information under Article 9(1) of the Charter means that the State must not impede access to information. It asserts that after the signing of Decree No. 96-884 of 25 October 1996, it was published in the Official Gazette and that it was incumbent upon the Applicants to take note thereof and ascertain their rights. The Respondent State prays the Court to dismiss this allegation. *** 74. Article 9(1) of the Charter provides as follows: “1. Every individual shall have the right to receive information.” 75. The Court notes that the right to information guaranteed in Article 9(1) of the Charter is based on the principle of knowing, receiving, accessing and disseminating information often required to promote other rights or the exercise thereof. It thus implies a proactive obligation on the part of the 18