- 53 were contained in regulations or norms of a lower rank that did not possess these characteristics.” They stated that the purpose of the institution of disciplinary proceedings and the subsequent dismissals was “to sanction the [presumed] victims for expressing an opinion contrary to the coup d’état […] and thus create an inhibiting effect on the other members of the Judiciary” in order to prevent any further questioning of the role that the Supreme Court played in this context and, “thus, harming judicial independence.” Regarding the situation of Justice Flores, they argued that “the filing of complaints can be considered a form of exercising freedom of expression, [so that] the dismissal of the justice […] constituted an inference with that right.” Lastly, the representatives argued the violation of Article 23(1)(a) as part of the presumed right to defend human rights (infra para. 284). 159. The State argued that “no actions have been taken to restrict freedom of thought and expression, [because] both the Judicial Service Council and the actual […] Council of the Judiciary and the Judicial Service have upheld all the judicial guarantees of the petitioners, giving them the opportunity to defend themselves in the different instances to prove that they had not incurred administrative responsibility.” It indicated that “there are limitations to the exercise of any right, and although it is argued that external influences should be avoided in jurisdictional decision, this means that the organs that impart justice must function correctly; that, in accordance with the norms in force, judicial officials should not perform any act that compromises the necessary impartiality in the exercise of their functions.” It also stressed that “the Supreme Court of Justice did not carry out any dismissal for political reasons,” but rather the dismissals were the result of wrongful acts. Lastly, it pointed out that Mr. Barrios continued in his functions earning a salary as a judge, during the proceedings in which it was decided that the Inspectorate General of Courts and Tribunals had not substantiated the grounds for his dismissal beyond any reasonable doubt. B. Considerations of the Court 160. The Court has recognized the relationship that exists between political rights, freedom of expression, the right of assembly and freedom of association, and that these rights, taken as a whole, make the democratic process possible.296 In situations where there is a breakdown of institutional order following a coup d’état, the relationship between these rights is even clearer, especially when they are all exercised at the same time in order to protest against actions by the public authorities that are contrary to the constitutional order, and to reclaim the return to democracy. Protests and related opinions in favor of democracy should be ensured the highest protection and, depending on the circumstances, may be related to all or some of the said rights. 161. Article 23 of the Convention, with regard to political rights, recognizes rights of the citizen that are exercised by each particular individual. Paragraph 1 of this article recognizes that every citizen has the right: (a) to take part in the conduct of public affairs, directly or through freely chosen representatives; (b) to vote and to be elected in genuine periodic elections, which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and by secret ballot that guarantees the free expression of the will of the voters; and (c) to have access, under general conditions of equality, to the public service of his country.297 162. The effective exercise of political rights constitutes an end in itself and, also, an essential means that democratic societies have to ensure the other human rights established in the Convention.298 Moreover, according its Article 23, the holders of these rights – in other words, the 296 Cf. Case of Castañeda Gutman v. Mexico, supra, para. 140. 297 Cf. Case of Yatama v. Nicaragua. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 23, 2005. Series C No. 127, paras. 195 to 200, and Case of Argüelles et al. v. Argentina, supra, para. 221. 298 Cf. Case of Castañeda Gutman v. Mexico, supra, para. 143, and Case of López Mendoza v. Venezuela. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 1, 2011 Series C No. 233, para. 108.