- 59 178. The proceeding instituted against Mr. López Lone and his subsequent dismissal resulted from his participation in the demonstration held near Toncontin Airport while awaiting the return of President Zelaya, several days after the coup d’état (supra paras. 87 to 103). His participation constituted an exercise of his rights to participate in politics, to freedom of expression and to the right of assembly. Even though some individuals in the demonstration carried flags of political parties, the Court finds that the relevant fact is that it was a protest and a demonstration in favor of the return to the democratic institutional structure represented by the return of President Zelaya, unlawfully deposed from the presidency according to international law. Therefore, this Court concludes that the disciplinary proceeding against Mr. López Lone and his subsequent dismissal constituted a violation of Articles 13(1), 15 and 23 of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument, to his detriment. B.2) Luis Alonso Chévez de la Rocha 179. The proceeding instituted against Mr. Chévez de la Rocha was based on his presumed participation in a protest against the coup d’état and his resulting arrest. Subsequently, comments made by Mr. Chévez de la Rocha to his judicial colleagues concerning the actions of the Judiciary vis-à-vis the coup d’état were included in the proceeding (supra paras. 124 to 134). The Supreme Court of Justice ruled to dismiss Judge Chévez on June 4, 2010, and he was removed from office on September 23, 2010 (supra paras. 123 and 132). After the Supreme Court’s decision had been contested, the Judicial Service Council considered that the appeal filed against this decision was admissible (supra para. 134). Nevertheless, the Judicial Service Council rejected the request to reinstate him in his post, because: (i) it was considered proved that Mr. Chévez was “ashamed of belonging to the Judiciary and, if he [was] employ[ed] in the Judiciary, this [was] by necessity and, in view of such opinions of inconformity, it [was] not desirable for either of the parties to continue the employment relationship,” and (ii) it was considered that his reinstatement was impossible because someone had been appointed to substitute him on September 13, 2010. Consequently, the Council decided to compensate Mr. Chévez (supra para. 137). 180. The Court notes that the alleged participation of Mr. Chévez de la Rocha in a protest against the coup d’état and the comments that he made against the actions of the Judiciary vis-à-vis the coup d’état, constituted the exercise of his right to participate in politics, to freedom of expression and to the right of assembly. Therefore, the Court concludes that the disciplinary proceeding against Mr. Chévez de la Rocha, as well as the refusal to reinstate him in his post of judge, constituted a violation of Articles 13(1), 15 and 23 of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument, to his detriment. B.3) Tirza del Carmen Flores Lanza 181. The proceeding instituted against Ms. Flores Lanza was based on the filing of an application for amparo in favor of President Zelaya, as well as the filing of a criminal complaint before the Prosecutor General, and comments on the actions of other judicial organs, including the Supreme Court of Justice (supra paras. 106 to 121). In this regard, the Court considers that, in specific circumstances, the filing of judicial remedies may be considered an exercise of the right to freedom of expression.330 Indeed, judicial remedies and criminal complaints may be an appropriate mechanism to disseminate ideas or thoughts, for example, in the context of a coup d’état, because it reveals positions taken to protect the rule of law or constitutional rights, matters of evident public relevance. Although, under normal conditions, certain restrictions to the exercise of the practice of 330 Similarly, see, ECHR, Case of Kayasu v. Turkey, Nos. 64119/00 and 76292/01. Judgment of November 13, 2008 paras. 59 and 61, 81 and 107; Case of Heinsich v. Germany, No. 28274/08. Judgment of July 21, 2011, para. 45, and Case of Baka vs. Hungary, No. 20261/12. Judgment of May 27, 2014, para. 102.