29 information and promote their common interests and claims is one of the purposes of the right to freedom of association in the workplace. Consequently, the Commission considered that the strict proportionality of restrictions to freedom of association in the workplace should be judged based on their effects on the right of labor organizations and their leaders to ensure the protection of the interests of those they represent, and on their potential dissuasive effects on other trade union or workers’ leaders. 83. The representatives argued that the judicial confirmation of Mr. Lagos del Campo’s dismissal could have an intimidating effect on other individuals in a similar situation, or other workers who have been mistreated by their employers, leading them to be afraid to report irregularities such as those described in this case. Consequently, they argued that the judgment handed down by the Second Labor Court of Peru contributed to a work environment in which the workers could be afraid to report problems such as those in this case or other conflicts. 84. The State argued that, since Mr. Lagos del Campo was not a representative of the workers or a labor union leader, and therefore did not have the corresponding protection, his freedom of association was not violated as a result of the presumed violation of his freedom of expression. The State also argued that there could not be any intimidating effect for other workers in relation to their membership in the Industrial Community, because membership of that Community did not depend on them; rather it was established in the applicable law in force at the time. Lastly, it argued that no proof had been submitted with regard to the presumed intimidation and/or fear caused to the workers owing to possible loss of their jobs. 3. Domestic legal effects 85. The Commission considered that the laws on which the dismissal of Mr. Lagos del Campo was based were vague and imprecise, because they failed to delimit their sphere of application so as to protect statements on matters of public interest or declarations made by workers’ representatives, speaking in that capacity. In this regard, it indicated that, in light of the fact that Mr. Lagos del Campo’s right to freedom of expression having been violated as a result of the application of a law that did not meet legal requirements, the State also failed to comply with Article 2 of the American Convention. 86. The representatives agreed with the Commission’s argument on the incompatibility between paragraph (h) of article 5 of Law No. 24514 and Article 2 of the American Convention. In addition, they argued that Legislative Decree No. 728, which derogated Law No. 24514, suffered from the same defects as the law applied in this specific case. Consequently, they asked the Court to examine the compatibility of article 25 of Legislative Decree No. 728 with the American Convention 87. The State argued that article 5 of Law No. 24514 was not vague and imprecise because it did not delimit its sphere of application with regard to matters of public interest or with regard to statements made by representatives acting as such. However, Mr. Lagos del Campo was not a workers’ representative and, therefore, his statements were not of public interest. Furthermore, and despite the foregoing, it argued that the constitutionality of Law No. 24514 had never been questioned by the respective domestic mechanisms while it was in force, and was never the object of either complaint or criticism before the International Labour Organization. Consequently, the State considered that it did not fail to comply with Article 2 of the American Convention. B. Considerations of the Court 1. Freedom of expression and judicial guarantees