8 19. In relation to the Inter-American Court’s contentious function, the matters concerning labor or trade unions and freedom of association submitted to its consideration have referred to the dismissal of members of labor unions and the execution of labor union leaders. In the cases of Baena Ricardo v. Panama,36 Huilca Tecse v. Peru37 and Cantoral Huamaní and García Santa Cruz v. Peru,38 the Inter-American Court developed the content of the right to associate for “labor” purposes established in Article 16 of the American Convention in relation to violations of freedom of association in a trade or labor union. 20. In the case of Baena Ricardo v. Panama, the Inter-American Court considered that, in order to analyze whether the right to freedom of association had been violated, this should be examined in relation to labor union freedom. Thus, it considered that, in labor unions matters, freedom of association consisted basically in the ability to constitute labor unions and set in motion their internal structure, activities and program of action, without any intervention by the public authorities that could limit or impair the exercise of the respective right. This freedom also supposed that each person could determine, without any pressure, whether or not they wished to form part of the association. In other words, this related to the basic right to associate in order to achieve a legitimate purpose without pressure or interference that could alter or denature that purpose.39 21. In this regard, the Inter-American Court considered that freedom of association, in relation to labor unions, was of great importance for the defense of the legitimate interests of workers and was part of the corpus juris of human rights.40 In labor matters, freedom of association, according to Article 16 of the American Convention, includes a right and a freedom: (i) the right to form associations, subject only to the restrictions established in paragraphs 2 and 3 of the said Article 16,41 and (ii) the freedom of everyone not to be compelled or obliged to join a labor union. 42 22. In the case of Huilca Tecse, following the Peruvian State’s acknowledgement of international responsibility, the Inter-American Court considered that the extrajudicial execution of Pedro Huilca Tecse had constituted a violation of the content of the right to freedom of association, in relation to freedom to join a labor union.43 The Inter-American Court also established that the execution of a labor union leader, not only restricted the freedom of association of an individual, but also the right and the freedom of a specific group to associate freely, without fear, so that the right protected by Article 16 had a special scope and nature. This revealed the two dimensions of freedom of association.44 23. Regarding the two dimensions of the right to freedom of association, the individual and the social, the Inter-American Court added that: 36 No. 72. 37 Case of Baena Ricardo et al. v. Panama. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 2, 2001. Series C Case of Huilca Tecse v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of March 3, 2005. Series C No. 121. Case of Cantoral Huamaní and García Santa Cruz v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 10, 2007. Series C No. 167. 38 39 Case of Baena Ricardo et al. v. Panama, supra, para. 156. 40 Case of Baena Ricardo et al. v. Panama, supra, para. 157 and Case of Huilca Tecse v. Peru, supra, para. 73. In the same case, the Court also considered that the American Convention was very clear when it pointed out, in Article 16, that freedom of association “shall be subject only to such restrictions established by law as may be necessary in a democratic society, in the interest of national security, public safety or public order, or to protect public health or morals or the rights and freedoms of others.” Case of Baena Ricardo et al. v. Panama, supra, para. 168. 41 42 Case of Baena Ricardo et al. v. Panama, supra, para. 159. 43 Case of Huilca Tecse v. Peru, supra, para. 67. 44 Case of Huilca Tecse v. Peru, supra, para. 69.