96 association, because of the failure of the negotiation between the Coordinating Organisation of State Enterprise Workers’ Unions and the Government; c) both, the Government, and the directors of the State enterprises had knowledge sufficiently in advance of the trade union activities scheduled by the workers; d) the work stoppage was not formally declared illegal by the State; e) the work stoppage did not take place; it was suspended in the early hours of the morning; f) Law 25 penalised the State workers’ associations, which were, since October 8, 1990, committed to obtain recognition for a number of rights; this Law refers to the workers’ unions of the public sector, which were directly affected since the dismissals were made selectively; g) the premises of the State workers’ associations were taken by the public force, their members were expelled, pursued or detained, and their facilities were looted; there was even intervention of their funds and checking accounts that consisted of membership contributions; h) there never was a link between the armed plan to subvert the constitutional order and the workers’ convocation to a work stoppage; i) the 270 workers were dismissed because of their active membership in a trade union; j) in declaring that the work stoppages and the abrupt collective interruptions of the work in the public sector attempted against democracy and the constitutional order, Resolution 10 of January 23, 1991, violated the freedom of association right; k) the ILO Labour Union Freedom Committee stated that Law 25 attempted seriously against the exercise of this freedom by the workers’ unions; and l) respect for the right to associate implies not only having to abstain from intervening at the time when those who become associated proceed to form the group, but also abstaining from intervening in the course of the activities that the group legitimately performs, and abstaining from imposing, a posteriori, unfavourable consequences on its members. Arguments of the State 152. For its part, the State argued that: a) the limitations imposed for the use and enjoyment of this right are the same as those imposed for other rights: public order, national security, public morals, or the rights of others;