84 285. The State maintained that the proceedings instituted against the alleged victims were legitimate measures given their failure to comply with the duties of their judicial office. Nevertheless, it was up to the State to provide proof or arguments that demonstrated that the sole purpose of the disciplinary proceedings was to protect the principles of judicial independence and impartiality in the context described above. Even so, it failed to produce that evidence or make that case. To the contrary, the speed with which the proceedings herein described were instituted and the drastic disciplinary measures taken stand in stark contrast to the judiciary’s inaction in the face of the serious human rights violations committed in the wake of the coup d’état. From the elements in the present case, one can conclude that the proceedings sub examine were instituted for the purpose of silencing criticism of the coup. The ambiguities and imprecision of the law were used to achieve ends other than those prescribed by law, in an abusive exercise of State power. 286. It is telling that no disciplinary proceedings were instituted against those judicial officials who dabbled in politics on the side of those who supported the de facto government. The Commission knows of only one investigation instituted because the Head of Personnel of the Judicial Branch issued a communiqué on June 30, 2009, which read as follows: “Acting on instructions from above, officials and employees of the Judicial Branch are hereby invited to take part in the ‘March for Peace in Honduras’ which will be held in the central park of the city of Tegucigalpa today, Tuesday, June 30, 2009 from 9:30 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.” [emphasis in the original]. The Commission notes that the communiqué was signed by Ing. Sandra Lizeth Rivera Gallo, Head of Personnel of the Office of the Director of Personnel Management of the Judicial Branch. An investigation was allegedly instituted against her only because of a complaint filed by the alleged victims in this case. The investigation concluded that officials in the Office of the Director of Personnel Management and the General Secretariat of the SCJ had issued the invitation by mistake, but in good faith, and that no employee or official in the Judicial Branch attended the event to which they were invited.” 287. Summarizing, the evidence points to the conclusion that relying on excessively broad grounds for dismissal, the objective was to silence criticism of the coup d’état and the judicial branch’s role in it; in other words, indirect pressure was used to restrict exercise of the right to freedom of expression by the judges who are victims in the present case, in violation of Article 13(3) of the American Convention. C. Right of association and right to participate in government (articles 16 and 23 of the Convention, read in conjunction with Article 1 thereof) 288. The right of association is protected under Article 16 of the American Convention.345 The Court has observed that under Article 16(1) of the Convention, “those who are protected by the 345 “1. Everyone has the right to associate freely for ideological, religious, political, economic, labor, social, cultural, sports, or other purposes. 2. The exercise of this 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. 3. The provisions of this article do not bar the imposition of legal restrictions, including even deprivation of the exercise of the right of association, on members of the armed forces and the police.