87. Likewise, in the Case of López Lone, the Inter-American Court found that freedom of expression, particularly on matters of public interest, “is a cornerstone upon which the very existence of a democratic society rests. Without an effective guarantee of freedom of expression the democratic systems is weakened and there is a breakdown of pluralism and tolerance; the mechanisms of control and complaint that citizens have may become inoperable and, indeed, a fertile ground is created for authoritarian systems to take root.”54 The Court also indicated that the defense of democracy is not only the exercise of a right but the fulfillment of a duty. 55 88. Along these same lines, the IACHR has stated that legitimate protection of the principles of independence and impartiality of the judiciary cannot entail the expectation that judges remain silent on all matters of public relevance. Rather, limitations must strike an adequate balance between the right to expression and the duty to maintain discretion and exercise prudence to safeguard the independence and impartiality of their position.56 In their 2002 joint declaration, the rapporteurs for freedom of expression of the UN, the IACHR, and the OSCE stated that, “Judges’ right to freedom of expression, and to comment on matters of public concern, should be subject only to such narrow and limited restrictions as are necessary to protect their independence and impartiality.”57 89. For their part, the Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct establish that “A judge, like any other citizen, is entitled to freedom of expression, belief, association and assembly, but in exercising such rights, a judge shall always conduct himself or herself in such a manner as to preserve the dignity of the judicial office and the impartiality and independence of the judiciary.”58 Likewise, the United Nations Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary recognize that “members of the judiciary are like other citizens entitled to freedom of expression, belief, association and assembly; provided, however, that in exercising such rights, judges shall always conduct themselves in such a manner as to preserve the dignity of their office and the impartiality and independence of the judiciary.”59 90. Likewise, in the Case of Baka v. Hungary, the European Court found that “Issues concerning the functioning of the justice system constituted questions of public interest, the debate of which enjoyed the protection of Article 10 of the Convention.”60 Additionally, in the case of Kudeshkina v. Russia, the European Court found that removing a judge for having publicly criticized the lack of independence of the judicial branch violated the judge’s right to freedom of expression, as enshrined in Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Although the European Court recognized that judges are subjected to special duties of confidentiality with regard to cases in which the impartiality and independence of the Judicial Branch can be called into question, it also found that the fact that a certain matter may have political implications is not in itself sufficient grounds for prohibiting a judge from stating an opinion on the matter.61 In its case law regarding sanctions on judges for exercising freedom of expression, the European Court has taken the following elements into account: the office of the applicant; the content of the statements in question; the context in which the statements were given; and the nature and severity of the sanctions imposed.62 54 Inter-American Court, Case of López Lone et al. v. Honduras, Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of October 5, 2015. Series C No. 302, paras. 165. 55 Inter-American Court, Case of López Lone et al. v. Honduras, Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of October 5, 2015. Series C No. 302, para 148. 56 Inter-American Court, Case of López Lone et al. v. Honduras, Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of October 5, 2015. Series C No. 302, paras. 157 and 163. 57Joint Declaration by the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Opinion and Expression, the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media and the OAS Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression, 2002. 58 Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct, 2002; also see United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, Commentary on the Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct, 2013. 59 Principle 8 of the Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary, adopted by the Seventh United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders held at Milan from 26 August to 6 September 1985 and endorsed by General Assembly resolutions 40/32 of 29 November 1985 and 40/146 of 13 December 1985. 60 European Court of Human Rights, case of Baka v. Hungary, Application no. 20261/15, decision of June 23, 2016, para. 159. 61 European Court of Human Rights, Case of Kudeshina v. Russia, decision of February 26, 2009, para. 86 and following; also see European Court of Human Rights, case of Baka v. Hungary, Application no. 20261/15, decision of June 23, 2016, para. 159. 62 European Court of Human Rights, case of Baka v. Hungary, Application no. 20261/15, decision of June 23, 2016, para. 159; also see European Court of Human Rights, case of Wille v. Liechtenstein, decision of October 28, 1999, para. 63. 15