14 Court] […], and pursuant to that stated in Article 54 of [its] Rules of Procedure […], inform the State of Honduras of said facts so it may implement [said] State’s legislation.”32 40. The representatives referred to, among others, “a violation to the principle of good procedural faith by the State of Honduras, by trying to discredit a testimony with subjective assessments without any legal grounds and dishonestly,” that they were trying to “once more disregard the right to express [themselves] in [their] own language,” and they denounced “th[at] act of the State as a serious reprisal against the victims, those offering their statement, and the representatives.” The aforementioned would also evidence “an intelligence follow-up to those who have offered their statements and the representatives in the case” and “[t]he recording of [the] video indicate[s] that the State carr[ied] out inquiries directly related with the participation of those offering their statements in the international proceedings as reprisal for their testimonies.” The representatives indicated that this would result in a violation of Article 53 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court. 41. The Commission indicated that the representatives’ request to admit an interpreter of the Garífuna language to translate the statement of witness Flores at the public hearing had been granted by the President of the Court at the meeting prior to it and that “at said meeting the State [had] not question[ed] the participation of an interpreter for Mrs. Flores.” It added that “the decision to allow a person to use an interpreter at a hearing does not necessarily derive from the fact that he or she does not speak the official language of the case, but of a greater fluency that allows for a greater possibility to express oneself in one’s own language, in this case the Garífuna language” which would be “an important expression of the cultural identity of said indigenous people” and it added that “the statement offered by Mrs. Flores at the public hearing was made respecting the Court’s regulatory norms.” 42. It is important to mention that this Court will not go on record regarding the content of the interview carried out with Mrs. Flores, given that it can be concluded from the State’s brief that it only presented said evidence to prove that the witness speaks the Spanish language as grounds for its request regarding Article 54 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court. In this sense, this Court verifies that the witness, in her statement offered at the public hearing, never referred to her knowledge of the Spanish language, thus her statement cannot be considered a false deposition in the terms of Article 54 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court. As a result, the State’s mentioned request is denied. Similarly, the Court recalls that the freedom of expression implies the right of people to use the language of their choice when expressing their thoughts33 and that, in that sense, a person offering their statement may do so in the language they are most fluent in so they may express themselves adequately. 43. On the other hand, the State is reminded, as was informed to the witness before offering her statement at the public hearing, that Article 53 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court regarding the “[p]rotection of alleged victims, witnesses, expert witnesses, representatives, and legal advisers” indicates that “[s]tates may not institute proceedings Article 54 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court refers to the “failure to appear or false testimony” and indicates that: “[w]hen a person summoned to appear or declare before the Court fails to appear or refuses to render a statement without legitimate cause, or when, in the opinion of the Court, he or she has violated his or her oath or solemn declaration, the Court shall inform the State with jurisdiction over that witness so that appropriate action may be taken under the relevant domestic legislation.” 32 Cfr. Case of López Álvarez v. Honduras. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of February 1, 2006, Series C No. 141, para. 164. Additionally, this Court points out that the presenter of the show mentioned that the interview had been carried out “completely in the Spanish language,” which was in fact proven with the recording of the interview. However, the representatives, in their brief of May 5, 2014, which was forwarded to the State through a note from the Secretariat of the 8th day of that same month and year, requested that an interpreter be accepted to translate the statement of witness Flores who “despite speaking Spanish saw her cultural expression limited in the Spanish language.” Therefore, the Court verifies that the representatives never denied that the witness spoke Spanish, even though in a limited manner in some aspects. 33