3 of Article 16, 10 and the freedom of all persons not to be compelled or forced to association. 11 join an In the case Huilca Tecse, the Court stated that “[…] in its individual dimension, laborrelated freedom of association is not exhausted by the theoretical recognition of the right to form trade unions, but also corresponds, inseparably, to the right to use any appropriate means to exercise this freedom. When the Convention proclaims that freedom of association includes the right to associate freely “for [… any] other purpose,” it is emphasizing that the freedoms to associate and to pursue certain collective goals are indivisible. Thus, any restriction on the possibilities of association represents directly, and to the same extent, a restriction of the right of the collective to achieve its proposed objectives. Hence, the importance of bringing the legal provisions applicable to trade unions into line with the Convention, along with the actions of the State - or those that occur with its tolerance – that could render this right inoperative in practice.” Furthermore, “[…] in its social dimension, freedom of association is a mechanism that allows the members of a labor collectivity or group to achieve certain objectives together and to obtain benefits for themselves.” 12 8. Among the rights enjoyed by individual workers, i.e., the right to work and to fair and satisfactory working conditions, perhaps the most relevant precedents are the cases of the Dismissed Congressional Employees 13 and Canales Huapaya, 14 both against the Peruvian State. Similarly, given the characteristics of this right, the Court had also expressed itself indirectly when it protected the non-removability (immunity from dismissal) of justice operators at the time of performing their duties, since one the facets of the right to work is security of tenure in the exercise thereof. 15 Thus, the right to work has been protected through Articles 2, 6, 8, 9, 24 and 25 of the American Convention. 16 9. Notwithstanding these precedents of indirect justiciability, the greatest development of labor rights occurred beginning with the case of Lagos del Campo v. Peru in 2017, 17 in which the Court declared the direct violation of the right to job 10 In that case, the Court also considered that the American Convention is very clear in pointing out, in Article 16, that freedom of association can only be subject to the restrictions provided by law, that are necessary in a democratic society and are established in the interests of national security, public order, public health or public morals or of the rights or freedoms of others. (Case of Baena Ricardo et al. v. Panama, supra, para. 168). 11 Cf. Case of Baena Ricardo et al. v. Panama, supra, para. 158. 12 Cf. Case of Huilca Tecse v. Peru, supra, paras, 70 and 71 (underlining added). 13 Cf. Case of the Dismissed Congressional Employees (Aguado Alfaro et al.) v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 24, 2006. Series C No. 158, para. 129. 14 Case of Canales Huapaya et al. v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 24, 2015. Series C No. 296, para. 108. Subsequently, in 2020, in the Case of Casa Nina v. Peru, the Court declared an autonomous violation of the right to work with respect to persons involved in the administration of justice. 15 16 Cf. Case of the Supreme Court of Justice (Quintana Coello et al.) v. Ecuador. Preliminary objection, Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 23, 2013. Series C No. 266, para. 153 and Case of López Lone et al. v. Honduras. Preliminary objection, Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of October 05, 2015. Series C No. 302, para. 193. 17 Case of Lagos del Campo v. Peru, supra. 3