101 Within the framework of the protection of human rights, the word laws would not make sense without reference to the concept that such rights cannot be restricted at the sole discretion of governmental authorities. To affirm otherwise would be to recognize in those who govern virtually absolute power over their subjects. On the other hand, the word " laws " acquires all of its logical and historical meaning if it is regarded as a requirement of the necessary restriction of governmental interference in the area of individual rights and freedoms.64 170. In like manner, “the Convention not only requires a law in order to legitimate restrictions to the enjoyment or exercise of rights or freedoms, but also demands that such laws be enacted for reasons of general interest and in accordance with the purpose for which such restrictions have been established."65 171. In order to arrive at conclusions on whether or not the State violated the right to freedom of association, the Court takes particularly into account the assertions contained in the application of the Commission, the certifications in the record, and the Recommendations of the Labour Union Freedom Committee of the ILO in solving case N° 1569, which were neither contested nor denied by the State in connection with the following facts: a) that Law 25 was issued 15 days after the events that gave rise to the instant case; b) that the rules relative to the trade union domain were not observed in relationship to the dismissal of the workers; c) that the workers unions’ premises were blocked and that their banking accounts were intervened; and d) that numerous dismissed workers were leaders of trade union organizations. 172. No evidence has been provided to the Court to prove that the measures adopted by the State were necessary to safeguard the public order in the context of the events, nor that they maintained a relationship to the principle of proportionality; in sum, the Court feels that such measures did not meet the requirement of being “necessary in a democratic society” enshrined in Article 16(2) of the Convention. 173. In respect of the foregoing, the Court concludes that the State violated the right to freedom of association enshrined in Article 16 of the American Convention, to the detriment of the 270 workers listed in paragraph 4 of this Judgment. XIII NON-COMPLIANCE WITH ARTICLES 1(1) AND 2 OBLIGATION TO RESPECT RIGHTS AND DOMESTIC LEGAL EFFECTS Arguments of the Commission 174. that: Concerning Articles 1(1), and 2 of the Convention, the Commission alleged a) Panama did not comply with the obligation to respect, to ensure respect for, and to guarantee the rights of the victims in the instant case. In addition to non-compliance with judicial guarantees, the judicial authorities 64 The word “laws” in Article 30 of the American Convention on Human Rights, Advisory Opinion OC6/86 of May 9, 1986. Series A N° 6, para 26 and 27. 65 28. The word “laws” in Article 30 of the American Convention on Human Rights, supra note 64, para.