recorded on leaders of social organizations, among others, which had been collected previously and was used for planning counterinsurgency operations, 180 as well as by the information on Edgar Fernando García in the Historical Archive of the National Police. The Court also underscores that, according to the testimony of Danilo Chinchilla, who was with Mr. García on the day of his arrest, the police arrested them after searching them and finding PGT documents and CAVISA papers (supra para. 65). The Court emphasizes that, when analyzing this and other evidence, the criminal court hearing the domestic proceedings established that “the objective [of the capture] was to obtain information from Edgar Fernanda García on his activities as a student, labor unionist, and member of Patriotic Youth for Labor and the [PGT].” 181 Therefore, this Court finds that it has been proved that Mr. García’s forced disappearance was motivated by his participation in labor and student associations categorized as “opposing and/or insurgent” in the context of the internal armed conflict in Guatemala. 121. The Court also emphasizes that Mr. García’s forced disappearance very probably had an unsettling and intimidating effect on the other members of the social organizations to which he belonged, which was accentuated by the context of impunity surrounding the case for many years (infra para. 154). This Court underlines that the effect of Mr. García’s disappearance on other labor unions can be seen in the concern that was actively expressed by the labor unions of CAVISA and other companies, and union associations or federations, which published paid announcements in the national press denouncing what happened to Mr. García and demanding his appearance even a year after the events. 182 Based on the foregoing, the Court concludes that the State violated the right to freedom of association recognized in Article 16(1) of the American Convention, in relation to the Article 1(1) of this instrument, to the detriment of Mr. García, because his disappearance was intended to restrict the exercise of his right to freedom of association. 122. Furthermore, in relation to the alleged violation of freedom of expression as a reason for the disappearance, the Court notes that these two freedoms (of association and of expression) are intrinsically related. Indeed, the European Court has recognized that the protection of freedom of thought and expression is one of the purposes of freedom of association. 183 Nevertheless, the Court considers that each of the rights contained in the Convention has its own sphere, meaning, and scope. 184 In the Court’s opinion, the violation criminal proceedings (file of annexes to the motions and arguments brief, tome I, folios 1972 to 1974 and 1979), and video entitled “Aún guardamos la esperanza” of February 2009, supra, parts 1 and 2. 180 Cf. Peace Secretariat, supra, pp. 21 and 23, folios 33 and 35. 181 Judgment of the Eighth Crime, Drug-trafficking and Environmental Offenses Court of October 28, 2010, C01069-1997-00001 (file of annexes to the motions and arguments brief, tome IV, annex C, folio 3864). 182 Cf. Note published by the Workers’ Union of Industria Centro Americana de Vidrio S.A. (STICAVSA) on October 18, 1984; note in which the Workers’ Union of Industria Centro Americana de Vidrio S.A. (STICAVSA) expresses its appreciation of the “solidarity” of the Unione Italiana del Lavoro and the Confederacione Italiana Sindicati Lavoratori, among other organizations from Sweden, France and the Federal Republic of Germany, published on May 24, 1984; notes published by the CAVISA workers on February 18, 1985, in the newspaper “El Gráfico,” and note published by the labor union of Embotelladora Guatemalteca, S.A. Anexos y Conexos Coca-Cola (STEGAC) on August 10, 1984 (file of annexes to the Merits Report, tome II, annex 31, folios 475, 477, 478 and 488). 183 Cf. ECHR, Young, James and Webster v. The United Kingdom, 13 August 1981, § 57, Series A no. 44; Sigurður A. Sigurjónsson v. Iceland, 30 June 1993, § 37, Series A no. 264; Chassagnou and Others v. France [Grand Chamber], nos. 25088/94, 28331/95 and 28443/95, § 103, ECHR 1999-III; Refah Partisi (the Welfare Party) and Others v. Turkey [Grand Chamber], nos. 41340/98, 41342/98, 41343/98 and 41344/98, § 88, ECHR 2003-II, and Vörður Ólafsson v. Iceland, no. 20161/06, § 46, ECHR 2010. 184 Cf. Case of Manuel Cepeda Vargas v. Colombia. Preliminary objections, Merits and reparations. Judgment of May 26, 2010. Series C No. 213, para. 171. 43