4 Guillermo López Lone was also a violation of the right of assembly, exercise of which was “an essential avenue for voicing criticism of the Honduran authorities’ activities. The petitioners added that while Luís Chévez did not participate in the demonstration, even if he had his conduct would have been entirely within the boundaries of the law. 14. The petitioners maintained that the State had violated the alleged victims’ freedom of association as they were members of the “Asociación de Jueces por la Democracia”, which spoke out against the coup d’état and was critical of the SCJ at the time. The petitioners stated that the arbitrary removal of the judges from their posts prevented them from continuing their membership in that association. The petitioners further alleged that the State had violated the right to defend human rights under Article 23 of the Convention, as the judges should not have had their right to defend human rights curtailed by virtue of their public office. 15. The petitioners argued that the illegal and arbitrary dismissals affected the dismissed judges’ right to humane treatment, which is evident in their sense of “anger, frustration and profound pain.” The petitioners added that the alleged victims were branded as “pro-Zelaya judges”, which has caused them additional pain as their personal struggle for the defense of human rights has been misrepresented. They added that the dismissals have left the judges in financial difficulty. Finally, the petitioners allege that the State violated Article 2 of the Convention inasmuch as Honduran law does not afford the necessary guarantees in disciplinary proceedings. B. The State 16. In the merits phase, the State indicated that the Council of the Judiciary is the institution charged with ensuring the rights of the employees and officials in the Judicial Branch. Accordingly, the Council retains sufficient independence to ensure judicial management commensurate with employees’ effective exercise of their rights and access to an integrated, effective and expeditious system of justice, and with preservation and defense of freedom of expression and other individual freedoms. 17. It argued that the action taken by the Judicial Branch in response to the alleged victims’ conduct has been respectful of legal due process and that access to the remedies under domestic law was afforded without unwarranted delay. It further stated that the Judicial Career Council issued its decisions in accordance with the system of laws that apply to the judicial career service and that are binding upon all judicial officials. 18. The State asserted that the Judicial Career Council decided to confirm the dismissal of Magistrate Tirza Flores and Mr. López Lone, and decided to keep Judge Ramón Barrios on the bench. It also decided to pay compensation and benefits to Judge Chévez de la Rocha. All these decisions were based on the legal arguments made both by the complainants and by the Judicial Career Council when the case was heard. The State added that the petition for amparo relief has not yet been exhausted. It noted that while the rules state that no remedies of any kind, either regular or special, shall be admissible against final decisions handed down by the Council, the person against whom some disciplinary measure has been ordered is free to file a petition seeking amparo relief from the Constitutional Chamber. It noted that many petitioners have obtained favorable rulings via this avenue, in which the decisions of the Judicial Career Council have been reversed and the affected parties reinstated or their labor benefits and compensation paid.