26 resolution (supra para. 98) – are an additional violation of the right to freedom of expression of Mr. Usón Ramírez, the State did not submit any allegations in its defense. Under these circumstances, the Tribunal deems it pertinent to apply the provisions of Article 38(2) of the Rules of Procedure, as done before,81 which establishes that “the Court may consider accepted those facts that have not been expressly denied and the claims that have not been expressly contested” by the State. Therefore, the Tribunal concludes that the State is responsible for violation of Article 13(1) and 13(2) of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of this Convention, to the detriment of Mr. Usón Ramírez, insofar as the prohibitions are abusive restrictions to the right to freedom of expression with no legitimate aim and they are not necessary or proportional in a democratic society. D) The alleged disciplinary sanction against Mr. Usón Ramírez while he was in prison 101. In the representatives’ writ of pleadings and motions, the representatives added that “[w]hile serving his judgment in prison, [Mr.] Usón Ramírez received a disciplinary sanction and his right to receive visits was suspended, since he had sent a letter to the directors and employees of Radio Caracas Televisión, showing his solidarity with them for the announced termination of their grant to an open air broadcast. This disciplinary measure was adopted without any procedure or prior notice to the accused and was the object of appeals by [Mr.] Usón and his counsel. Although the disciplinary sanction was then declared null by the competent Tribunal, such nullity was declared after Mr. Usón Ramírez had completely satisfied the requirements of the sanction imposed upon him.” 102. In relation to said claim by the representatives, the Tribunal reiterates what it has reiterated in its constant jurisprudence, that “the alleged victim, his relatives or his representatives may resort to other rights than those in the application of the Commission, on the basis of the facts submitted by the latter.”82 The facts on which this claim by the representatives is based do not form part of the factual framework submitted to the Court by the Inter-American Commission and are not supervening nor do they explain, clarify or dismiss the facts that have been mentioned by the former (supra para. 33). Therefore, the Tribunal shall not pronounce on this alleged violation. VII VIOLATION OF ARTICLES 8(1) (RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL)83 AND 25(1) (JUDICIAL PROTECTION),84 IN RELATION TO ARTICLE 1(1) (OBLIGATION TO RESPECT RIGHTS)85 AND 2 (DOMESTIC LEGAL EFFECTS)86 OF THE AMERICAN CONVENTION 81 Cf. Case of Valle Jaramillo et al., supra note 38, para. 130. 82 Cf. Case of the “Five Pensioners” v. Peru. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of February 28, 2003. Series C No. 98, para. 155; Case of Escher et al., supra note 11, para. 191, and Case of Acevedo Buendía et al. (“Discharged and Retired Employees of the Office of the Comptroller”), supra note 9, para. 97. 83 Article 8(1) of the Convention establishes that: Every person has the right to a hearing, with due guarantees and within a reasonable time, by a competent, independent, and impartial tribunal, previously established by law, in the substantiation of any accusation of a criminal nature made against him or for the determination of his rights and obligations of a civil, labor, fiscal, or any other nature. 84 Article 25(1) of the Convention establishes : Everyone has the right to simple and prompt recourse, or any other effective recourse, to a competent court or tribunal for protection against acts that violate his fundamental rights recognized by the constitution or laws of the state concerned or by this Convention, even though such violation may have