67 illegal or abusive acts previously unnoticed, ignored or perpetrated by authorities are exposed.”302 The IACHR has observed that “social protest and mobilization have become tools to petition the public authorities, as well as channels for public complaints regarding abuses or human rights violations.”303 222. Consequently, demonstration and social protest as the exercise of freedom of expression and right of assembly are a social imperative, leaving the State even less grounds to justify a restriction of these rights. The practical effect of the regulation of this right cannot be to prohibit assembly or peaceful demonstration. Thus, in language similar to Article 13 of the Convention, Article 15 of that instrument provides that exercise of that right “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.” 223. Based on these considerations, the IACHR will now determine whether, as the petitioners contend, the dismissal sanction imposed on Judge López Lone for exercising the right of assembly and freedom of expression is legitimate under the provisions of the American Convention described above; in other words, whether (a) the sanction is spelled out clearly and precisely in a formal and material law; (b) it is calculated to accomplish the objectives authorized by the American Convention; and (c) it is necessary in a democratic society to accomplish the legitimate purpose to be served, suitable to accomplishing that purpose and strictly proportional to it. 224. In responding to the petition filed in this case, the State asserted that the Honduran law that applies to public servants in the Judicial Branch, i.e. the Judicial Career Service Act and the Law on the Organization, Functions and Authorities of the Courts, as well as the applicable regulations,304 comply with the international standards on the subject. According to the State, these laws clearly establish limitations on judges and magistrates by virtue of their office and the function they perform. In general, the State underscored the fact that on this matter, the judges “have voiced opinions and made public statements on events of a political nature that they claimed were in violation of the Honduran Constitution; they thereby adopted and publicly expressed a personal opinion in this regard.” 225. Article 51 of the Judicial Career Service Act guarantees judicial public servants the “right of tenure when they properly enter the service and they may only be removed for conduct constituting grounds for dismissal under the terms of the present Act and its Regulations.” The IACHR observes that Judge López Lone was removed from his office for violation of Article 319 of the Constitution of the Republic, Article 3(6) of the Law on the Organization, Functions and Authorities of the Courts, “as provided in Article 49 of the Judicial Career Service Act and Article 156 of its Regulations.” The Commission must examine the text to determine whether these legal provisions are in compliance with the principle of strict legality, under which any limitations on the right to freedom of expression that 302 IACHR. Report on Terrorism and Human Rights, OEA/Ser.L/V/ll.116 Doc. 5 rev. 1 corr. October 22, 2001, paragraph 267. See also, IACHR, Second Report on the situation of human rights in Peru, OEA/Ser.L/V/II.106 Doc. 59 rev. June 2, 2000. Chapter V, paragraph 20. 303 IACHR. Annual Report 2005. Report of the Office of the Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression. Chapter V. Public Demonstrations as an Exercise of Freedom of Expression and Freedom of Assembly. OEA/Ser.L/V/II.124. Doc. 7. February 27, 2006. Paragraph 1. Available at: http://www.oas.org/en/iachr/expression/showarticle.asp?artID=662&lID=1 304 These are the Regulations Governing the Judicial Career Service Act, the Internal Regulations of the SCJ and the Code of Ethics for Judicial Officials and Employees.