According to the information provided by the petitioners, although Law 24514 was repealed, the current law is “equally broad” and likewise fails to provide for expressions of public interest. Accordingly, the petitioners argue that the restriction does not meet the requirement of legality, and therefore is a violation of Article 13 of the Convention, in relation to Articles 1.1 and 2 thereto. 20. The petitioners acknowledged that “the protection of the honor and dignity of individuals, and even of legal entities, can be a legitimate aim justifying the limitation of the right to freedom of expression, insofar as it intends to protect the reputation of others, as established by Article 13.2 of the American Convention.” They observed that, without prejudice to the above, those rights must be weighed by the judge against the right to information and to robust debate about the rights of workers in a democratic society. 21. The petitioners stated that the restrictive measure failed to meet the requirements of necessity and proportionality. In their opinion, the labor disputes arising in the company’s Industrial Community, as well as the statements made by Mr. Lagos del Campo in connection with that issue, were of clear public interest. On this point, they noted that Alfredo Lagos del Campo gave the statements in question to the magazine “la Razón” in his capacity as President of the Electoral Committee of the Industrial Community, a position in which he represented employee members of the Industrial Community, and in a context of heightened labor tensions. The elections referred to in his statements affected the 220 individuals who worked at the company and were, in turn, members of the Industrial Community. The petitioners further asserted that the statements were important because they informed Peruvian society of the irregularities within the workers’ industrial communities. 22. The petitioners asserted that the State failed to demonstrate that Mr. Lagos del Campo’s dismissal was truly necessary to accomplish the aim pursued, in view of the public interest of the speech in question. They argued that the State failed to show that dismissal was the measure least harmful to Mr. Lagos del Campo’s right to freedom of expression. Furthermore, the petitioners stated that Mr. Lagos del Campo did not harm the honor of his employers or coworkers, as the statements were directed not against a specific person but rather against the company as the employer. According to the petitioners, labor leaders in these situations have always made use of their freedom of expression with bombastic language aimed at the public in defense of the rights of their constituents, without it being considered a “serious infraction” that can lead to dismissal. 23. In relation to the violation of the right to a fair trial enshrined in Article 8 of the Convention, the petitioners alleged, first, the existence of defects in the stated reasoning of the court orders issued. They explained that the right to have the grounds for a decision clearly stated, recognized in the Constitution of Peru, has been interpreted by the Constitutional Court consistently in its case law, in which it has held—as has the Inter-American Court—that “every decision that fails to adequately, sufficiently, and coherently state the grounds for it, shall be an arbitrary decision, and therefore unconstitutional.” The petitioners asserted that, according to the Constitutional Court, there are three possible scenarios for a failure to state the grounds for a decision: (a) absence of the statement of grounds or a clear statement of grounds, when the minimum reasons supporting the decision are not provided, or they do not address the arguments of the parties to the case, or because the court attempts to merely comply with this requirement procedurally, relying on boilerplate language with no factual or legal support; (b) insufficient statement of the grounds, which would only be relevant from a constitutional perspective if the absence of arguments or the “insufficiency” of stated grounds is clear in light of the case being tried, and (c) absence of a suitable statement of grounds, which is indispensable in the case of decisions denying a claim, or when fundamental rights are affected as a result of the court’s decision, in which case the statement of the grounds for the judgment operates as a dual requirement, referring to both the right to the explanation of the reasons for the decision and the right that is being restricted by the judge or the court. 24. In view of the above, the petitioners argued that the Second Labor Court, which on appeal found that the dismissal was justified in order to protect “the reputation of the honor and dignity of the company’s senior staff,” did not meet the requirement to state “sufficient and qualified” grounds for its decision, as established in Article 8.1 of the Convention, which is required due to the severity of the penalty 4