55 b) the general prohibition of discrimination established in Article 1(1) of the Convention extends to the domestic law of the States Parties, who have made a commitment to not introduce discriminatory norms in their legal systems. In order for a distinction in treatment not be discriminatory, the State must prove an interest particularly important or an imperious social need, that may justify the distinction, and that the measure adopted be the less restrictive of the right in question, and c) Mr. López Álvarez was not allowed to use his native language during his stay in the prison. The State has argued security reasons to justify said restriction; even if there can be legitimate reasons to restrict certain rights within a criminal establishment, the State did not prove that the prohibition to use the language was “evidently necessary” or that it was the less restrictive measure possible. The prohibition suffered by the alleged victim violated Article 24 of the Convention and the general prohibition of discrimination for reasons of language, established in Article 1(1) of the same. 158. Arguments of the representatives: a) the State is the guarantor of the people detained under its custody, reason for which any measure adopted tending to restrict rights must be pursuant to human dignity, have a reasonable justification and it should be the measure that implies the least burden possible; b) language is one of the constitutive elements of the identity of the Garifuna people, therefore the liberty of expression has an individual and social dimension. The prohibition directed to the Garifuna people of speaking in their mother tongue, was not justified and up to this date the State has not been able to invalidate the arbitrary nature that characterized it, and c) the principles of right to equal protection and non discrimination belong to the field of the jus cogens. The arbitrary prohibition of the use of the Garifuna language in the Criminal Center of Tela was a discriminatory act. The State violated Mr. Alfredo López Álvarez’s right to no discrimination. The representatives referred to Articles 4, 5, and 28(3) of Agreement 169 of the International Labor Organization and Article 173 of the Constitution of Honduras. 159. Arguments of the State: a) it condemns that Mr. López Álvarez’s right was limited and states that an investigation was carried out by the Office of the Public prosecutor in order to attribute responsibilities. However, since it has been proven before the Court that the alleged victims also speak perfect Spanish, the damages argued by them and their representatives are not of the magnitude and seriousness affirmed by them; c) it acknowledges that ethnical minorities may express themselves in their native language. The State has put into action, through the Ministry of Education, programs for the implementation of a bilingual education, and c) it totally and absolutely respects the Garifuna people and other ethnic groups of Honduras. There is no type of segregation or discrimination for