the exercise of his right to freedom of association in a context of repression and elimination of leaders and members of any opposition organization”; this is revealed, inter alia, by the note on him in the Diario Militar. The representatives agreed with the Commission’s assessment. For its part, the State “expresse[d] its total acceptance” in relation to the violations of freedom of thought and expression and freedom of association to the detriment of Edgar Fernando García. 116. The Court has recognized that when the violation of the right to life, and to personal integrity or liberty is intended to prevent the legitimate exercise of another right protected by the Convention, such as the freedoms of association 170 and expression, 171 there is also an autonomous violation of this right protected in the American Convention. Regarding freedom of association, this Court has stated that Article 16(1) of the American Convention establishes that those who are under the jurisdiction of the States Parties have the right and the freedom to associate freely with other persons, without any interference from the public authorities that could limit or impair the exercise of this right. Thus, this is the right to associate with others in order to achieve a legitimate common objective without pressure or interference that could alter or denature this objective. 172 In addition to these negative obligations, the Inter-American Court has observed that freedom of association also gives rise to positive obligations to prevent attacks on it, to protect those who exercise it, and to investigate violations of this freedom. 173 117. Similarly, the Court considers that the content of trade union freedom, a form of freedom of association, entails the power of choice as to how to exercise it. Thus, an individual does not enjoy the full exercise of the right to freedom of association if, in reality, this power is absent or reduced in such a way that it cannot be implemented. The State must ensure that people can freely exercise their freedom to form a labor union without fear of being subjected to violence of any kind; otherwise, the ability of groups to organize in order to protect their interests cold be reduced. 174 118. The Court has noted that Edgar Fernando García was a leader of the labor union of CAVISA where he worked; he was connected with the PGT and with a university student association (supra para. 62). In addition, it has been proved that these types of organizations were considered “internal enemies” during the internal armed conflict in Guatemala (supra paras. 51 and 54). The Court emphasizes that, based on these facts, the State acknowledged its international responsibility for the violation of Mr. García’s right to freedom of association. 119. Indeed, the Court observes that various factors and evidence provided to the case file reveal the intention of restricting Edgar Fernando García’s freedom of association and, specifically, his union freedom by his forced disappearance. In this regard, the Court takes 170 Cf. Case of Huilca Tecse v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of March 3, 2005. Series C No. 121, paras. 66 to 79; Case of Cantoral Huamaní and García Santa Cruz v. Peru. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 10, 2007. Series C No. 167, paras. 146 and 147; Case of Kawas Fernández v. Honduras, supra, para. 150, and Case of Manuel Cepeda Vargas v. Colombia, supra, para. 172. 171 Cf. Case of Manuel Cepeda Vargas v. Colombia, supra, paras. 176 and 177. 172 Cf. Case of Baena Ricardo et al. v. Panama. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 2, 2001. Series C No. 72, para. 156, and Case of the Río Negro Massacres v. Guatemala, supra, para. 167.. 173 Cf. Case of Huilca Tecse v. Peru, supra, para. 76, and Case of Fleury et al. v. Haiti. Merits and reparations. Judgment of November 23, 2011. Series C No. 236, para. 100. 174 Cf. Case of Huilca Tecse v. Peru, supra, para. 77. Se also, ECHR. Young, James and Webster v. The United Kingdom, 13 August 1981, § 56, Series A no. 44, and Plattform “Ärzte für das Leben” v. Austria. 21 June 1988, § 32, Series A no. 139.. 41