- 48 22, 2011, it was considered that “the Judicial Service Council had been disbanded” and the President of the Supreme Court of Justice was asked to provide guidance. Following the latter’s indications, the President of the Council appointed a lawyer to incorporate the Council so that the proceeding could continue.276 Subsequently, another person disqualified himself from the case and a substitute was appointed.277 147. On August 24, 2011, the Council decided to annul the dismissal of Mr. Barrios decided by the Supreme Court of Justice on June 16, 2010, and to keep him in the post of sentencing judge.278 In its decision, the Council, in response to the arguments of the appellant, reiterated the arguments on independence and impartiality that it had already presented in other proceedings (supra paras. 99, 118 and 134).279 However, it indicated that it had been proved that Mr. Barrios had not written the newspaper article.280 Also, taking into account the right to freedom of expression, the Council considered that “the investigation carried out by the Inspectorate of Courts and Tribunals […] was insufficient to substantiate the grounds for dismissal beyond a reasonable doubt with other types of evidence.”281 In addition, the Council decided to declare inadmissible the claim for reinstatement in office and reimbursement of salaries that had not been perceived, because Mr. Barrios was working at the date the decision was issued,282 as his dismissal had not taken effect (supra para. 146). VII MERITS 148. Taking into considering the context of this case (supra paras. 44 to 69) and the facts that it has considered proved, the Court finds that the disciplinary proceedings against the presumed victims were instituted based on their actions in defense of democracy. These actions corresponded not only to the exercise of a right, but also to compliance with the obligation to defend democracy, based on the provisions of the American Convention, and on the obligation under international law that the State of Honduras acquired by becoming a party to the American Convention and which is stipulated in instruments such as the Inter-American Democratic Charter. The grounds to substantiate this assertion are set out below. 149. As a starting point, it is worth emphasizing that representative democracy is one of the pillars of the system that the Convention forms part of, and constitutes a principle reaffirmed by the States of the Americas in the OAS Charter, a basic instrument of the inter-American system.283 Thus, the OAS Charter, a constituent treaty of the organization to which Honduras has been a party 276 Cf. Decision of the Judicial Service Council of March 22, 2011 (evidence file, folio 3457); Decision of the President of the Supreme Court of Justice of April 14, 2011 (evidence file, folio 3462), and Decision of the Judicial Service Council of April 26, 2011 (evidence file, folio 3465). 277 Cf. Disqualification dated July 25, 2011, signed by Jorge Alberto Zelaya Zaldaña (evidence file, folios 3477 and 3478), and Decision of the Judicial Service Council of August 1, 2011 (evidence file, folio 3479). 278 Cf. Decision of the Judicial Service Council of August 24, 2011 (evidence file, folios 3519 and 3520). 279 Cf. Decision of the Judicial Service Council of August 24, 2011 (evidence file, folios 3508 and 3509). 280 Cf. Decision of the Judicial Service Council of August 24, 2011 (evidence file, folio 3515). 281 Decision of the Judicial Service Council of August 24, 2011 (evidence file, folio 3516). 282 Cf. Decision of the Judicial Service Council of August 24, 2011 (evidence file, folios 3517, 3518 and 3520). According to information provided by the representatives, on March 26, 2014, Mr. Barrios Maldonado was dismissed from his judicial functions by a decision of that date of the Council of the Judiciary and the Judicial Service, for reasons unrelated to the facts of this case (merits file, folio 596). 283 Cf. The Word “Laws” in Article 30 of the American Convention on Human Rights. Advisory Opinion OC-6/86 of May 9, 1986. Series A No. 6, para. 34, and Case of Castañeda Gutman v. Mexico. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 6, 2008. Series C No. 184, para. 141.