- 61 C. Freedom of association and alleged indirect violation of freedom of expression 184. In addition to the violations examined in the preceding section, the Commission and the representatives alleged that the disciplinary proceedings to which the presumed victims were subjected constituted indirect methods or means of limiting their freedom of expression. In this regard, the Court notes that, in the preceding section, it examined the possible violation of the presumed victims’ freedom of expression as a result of the disciplinary proceedings used to restrict that right, under Article 13(1) of the Convention. In the instant case, the Court does not consider that a situation of indirect restrictions to freedom of expression exists. The arguments of the Commission and the representatives are substantially the same as those analyzed under Article 13(1) of the Convention. Therefore this Court does not find it appropriate to rule on the alleged violation of Article 13(3) of the Convention, based on facts that have already been analyzed. 185. The Commission and the representatives also asserted that the disciplinary proceedings and the consequent dismissal of the presumed victims from the Judiciary prevented them from continuing to be members of the AJD, and thus their freedom of association was violated. The Court has indicated that Article 16(1) of the American Convention establishes that those who are subject to the jurisdiction of the States Parties have the right and the freedom to associate freely with other persons, without the intervention of the public authorities limiting or obstructing the exercise of this right. In other words, this is the right to associate in order to achieve a legitimate common objective, without pressure or interference that could alter or denature this objective.334 In the same way that freedom of association has these negative obligations, the Inter-American Court has observed that it also gives rise to positive obligations to prevent any attacks on it, to protect those who exercise it, and to investigate any violations thereof.335 186. At the time of the coup d’état, the four presumed victims were members of the AJD; moreover, three of them were founding members or held directorial positions within the Association (supra paras. 68, 86, 105, 123 and 139). The Court has verified that the AJD issued a press communiqué in which it clearly indicated the position of the Association and its members against the coup d’état (supra para. 69). According to its statutes, only judges and justices on active duty can be members of the Association.336 The dismissal of Mr. López Lone, Mr. Chévez de la Rocha and Ms. Flores Lanza affected their possibility of belonging to the AJD and, therefore, also constituted an undue restriction of the right to freedom of association. Consequently, the Court concludes that the State violated Article 16 of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument, to the detriment of Mr. López Lone, Mr. Chévez de la Rocha and Ms. Flores Lanza. In the case of Mr. Barrios Maldonado, the Court considers that, since his dismissal was not put into effect, his freedom of association was not restricted.337 334 Cf. Case of Baena Ricardo et al. v. Panama. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 2, 2001. Series C No. 72, para. 156, and Case of García and family members v. Guatemala. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 29, 2012 Series C No. 258, para. 116. 335 Cf. Case of Huilca Tecse v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of March 3, 2005. Series C No. 121, para. 76, and Case of García and family members v. Guatemala, supra, para. 116. 336 Cf. Statutes of the Association of Judges for Democracy (AJD), published in Official Gazette No. 31,528 of October 10, 2007. Articles 8 and 12. Available at: http://www.poderjudicial.gob.hn/asociaciones/Documents/Estatutos%20Asociaci% C3%B3n% 20de%20Judges%20por%20la%20Democracia.pdf (cited in the Merits Report, merits file, folio 17). 337 The representatives advised that, following the events of this case, Mr. Barrios Maldonado was dismissed from his judicial functions (supra nota 282). Nevertheless, the Court notes that, since that proceeding does not form part of the factual framework of the instant case, it is not appropriate to examine a possible violation of the American Convention as a result of that fact.