36 Also, statements made in the context of an internal electoral process contribute to the debate during the process as an essential tool of the collective interest and of voters. 114. In this regard, the European Court of Human Rights has recognized certain statements made by workers in the specific context of the private sphere as of general interest in light of the right to freedom of expression under the European Convention.147 115. In order to evaluate the public interest in this specific case, the Court finds that it must consider the following elements: (i) The article examined was published in the context of an internal labor conflict based on presumed irregularities in the electoral process that the competent authority had been informed of, prior to the its publication; (ii) in the published interview, Mr. Lagos del Campo indicated that he would “continue fighting against the fraud, and call[ed] on all the workers to close ranks, demanding that [their] legal rights and obligations be respected. [He also asked] for the solidarity of all the country’s industrial communities and labor unions to express their rejection of the attempt to liquidate the industrial communities,” and this reveals the collective nature of his statements; (iii) in Peru, one of the purposes of the industrial communities is to promote the participation of the workers in a company’s patrimony and ensure an adequate distribution of profits; (iv) his statements referred to the intervention of the Participation Directorate of the Ministry of Industry; (iv) the newspaper requested the interview with Mr. Lagos del Campo and published the interview in the written media, considering that he referred to matters that were relevant for the interested sector of society (industry) (supra, para. 111). 116. Consequently, the Court notes that, in the context of the said electoral process, the statements made by Mr. Lagos del Campo, as a representative of the workers, in addition to exceeding the private sphere, had a relevance or impact that went beyond not only the collective interest of the company’s workers,148 but of members of the industrial communities as it related to the industrial communities in general. Therefore, the facts of this case reveal that the information contained in Mr. Lagos del Campo’s statements was of general interest and, consequently, was subject to a greater level of protection. 117. Third, regarding the significance of the statements published in “La Razón,” the Court recalls that freedom of expression, particularly in matters of general or public interest, “constitutes one of the essential foundations of a democratic society.”149 It must be guaranteed not only in relation to the dissemination of information and ideas that are favorably received or regarded as inoffensive or as a matter of indifference, but also as regards those that offend the State or any sector of the population.150 In addition, the Court has indicated that “[i]n discussions on issues of great public interest, it protects not only statements that are inoffensive or wellreceived by public opinion, but also those that shock, offend or disturb public officials or any of a trade union are protected by the right to freedom of association, so that “the members of a trade union must be able to express to their employer the demands by which they seek to improve the situation of workers in their company.” ECHR. Case of Palomo Sánchez and Others v. Spain; Case of Fuentes Bobo v. Spain, No. 39293/98. Judgment of February 29, 2000. 147 ECHR. Case of Palomo Sánchez and Others v. Spain [GS], supra, para. 72, and ECHR, Case of Fuentes Bobo v. Spain, supra, para. 40. In this regard: the Court, while acknowledging that the expressions used were offensive, concluded that they were included in a context of a long public discussions that concerned matters of general interest concerning the administration of public television. 148 Cf. Compulsory Membership of an Association Prescribed by Law for the Practice of Journalism. OC-5/85, supra, para. 70, and Case of Granier et al. (Radio Caracas Televisión) v. Venezuela. supra, para. 140. 149 Cf. Case of “The Last Temptation of Christ” v. Chile. supra, para. 69, and Case of Granier et al. (Radio Caracas Televisión) v. Venezuela, supra, para. 140. 150