For that reason, "in the event of a general or public interest, extra protection of freedom of expression is needed, especially in respect of persons officially representing others."54 51. In the instant case, the Commission observes that it is not disputed that Mr. Deras died on January 29, 1983, as a result of several shots fired by members of the military after having been stopped, when he was driving a vehicle. The IACHR also notes that, based on statements by police officers and witnesses, the District Court of Appeals, in a second instance judgment, convicted military agent Marco Tulio Regalado of murder. The Commission underscored that said judgment became final following rejection of an appeal for annulment filed by Mr. Regalado's defense counsel. Neither the Honduran State nor the petitioners have contested the outcome of those proceedings in their dealings with the Commission. 52. Since it is clear that Herminio Deras died at the hands of State agents, the Commission stresses that the Honduran State has not submitted an explanation that might lead one to consider that the death of Mr. Deras constituted a legitimate use of force, in accordance with the principles of legitimate purpose, strict need and proportionality. Nor does such a conclusion transpire from the information in the file. On the contrary, as indicated, the State has acknowledged that Mr. Regalado was found criminally responsible for the death of Herminio Deras. 53. Therefore, the Commission considers that it clearly transpires that what happened in the instance case constituted extrajudicial execution. Consequently, the Commission concludes that the Honduran State violated the right to life of Herminio Deras García, recognized in Article 4.1 of the American Convention, in conjunction with Article 1.1 of the same instrument. 54. Furthermore, the Commission notes that the extrajudicial execution of Mr. Deras occurred in a context acknowledged by both international and domestic organizations as being shaped by the so-called "doctrine of national security." That entailed the commission of grave human rights violations, including extrajudicial execution, against persons considered to be members or sympathizers of the Salvadoran guerrillas or Sandinistas. The ISACHR observes that Mr. Deras' status as a trade union leader and political leader in the Communist Party matches the profile of what the government at the time considered a target in accordance with a well-established context. On top of that, there is the information provided by the petitioners regarding several raids on his home, attempts at arrest and acts of aggression suffered by Mr. Deras at the hands of military agents for years prior to his execution, due precisely to his trade union and political work. That information, which will be analyzed in the following section, was not contested by the State. 55. Thus, the IACHR observes that the State attempted, through numerous means, to deny Mr. Deras' right to freedom of expression and freedom of association, a process that culminated in his extrajudicial execution. In light of the above, the Commission considers that the extrajudicial execution of Mr. Deras, in clear reprisal for his activities as a political leaders and trade unionist, also violated his rights to freedom of expression and association. Consequently, the IACHR concludes that the State violated, to his detriment, the rights protected in Articles 13.1 and 16.1 of the American Convention in conjunction with Article 1.1 of said instrument. 54 I/A Court H.R. Case of Lagos del Campo v. Peru. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of August 31, 2017. Series C No. 340, par. 96. 10