39 the sanction imposed on the presumed victim was proportionate to the legitimate purpose sought,162 and whether the reasons given by the internal authorities to justify it were pertinent and sufficient.163 125. In this regard, the Court understand that dismissal is probably the maximum penalty in the employment relationship;164 therefore, it must respond to an imperative need in relation to freedom of expression and it must be duly justified (“justified dismissal”)165. 126. In this regard, paragraphs 5 and 6 of ILO Recommendation No. 143 on Workers’ Representatives are relevant when establishing “the special protection that workers’ representatives should have against any act prejudicial to them, including dismissal, based on their status as workers’ representatives, among other matters, insofar as they act in conformity with existing laws or collective agreements or other jointly agreed arrangements.” 166 127. First, in this case, in a letter informing him of his dismissal, the employer considered that Mr. Lagos del Campo had not disproved the charges against him, so that it was in order to sanction him with dismissal, pursuant to the procedure established in Article 6 of the Decree-Law (supra, para. 55), informing the administrative labor authority, and with the corresponding consequences (supra, para. 57). 128. In a complaint dated July 26, 1989, Mr. Lagos del Campo contested the dismissal as “unjustified and unfair,” Accordingly, Peru’s labor jurisdiction was called on to assess the necessity of the restriction imposed, and was expressly asked to evaluate the necessity of applying the penalty (supra, para. 58). 129. In consequence, the Second Labor Court, which evaluated the dismissal, indicated that “in reiterated final judgments of this Court […] it has been established that the worker who makes statements or whose opinions published in newspapers offends the honor and image of the employer commits the serious offense established in paragraphs (a) and (h) of Article 5 of Law 24514.” In addition, after quoting some lines from the interview in dispute it concluded that “the offensive words indicated in the preceding paragraph constitute[d] serious insubordination or serious verbal misconduct against the employer, its representatives and co-workers, as the newspaper statements of the plaintiff referred to members of the Board of Directors and co- interest.” Also, Cf. ECHR, Case of Editions Plon v. France, Judgment of May 18, 2004, para. 42, and ECHR. Case of MGN Limited v. The United Kingdom. No. 39401/04. Judgment of January 18, 2011. para. 139. Cf. Case of “The Last Temptation of Christ” (Olmedo Bustos et al.) v. Chile, supra, para. 69 and Case of López Lone et al. v. Honduras, supra, para. 168. 162 Cf. ECHR, Case of Fuentes Bobo v. Spain, Judgment of February 29, 2000, supra, para. 42 and ECHR. Case of Palomo Sánchez and Others v. Spain [GS], supra, para. 63. 163 Cf. ECHR. Case of Heinisch v. Germany. No. 28274/08. Judgment of July 21, 2011, para. 91, and ECHR. Case of Palomo Sánchez v. Spain [GS], supra, paras. 75 and 76; and Expert opinion of Damián Loreti (hearing transcript pp. 43 and 44). 164 UN. ECOSOC. General Comment 18 affirms the obligation of States to assure individuals their right to work, including the right not to be deprived of work unfairly. See also: Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, General Comment 18, “The right to work,” E/C.12/GC/18. 165 Cf. ILO, Recommendation on Workers’ Representatives, 1971 (No. 143), Recommendation on protection and facilities that should be afforded to workers’ representatives. Fifty-sixth Session of the ILO General Conference; date adopted, June 23, 1971. 166 Paragraph 6. Where there are not sufficient relevant protective measures applicable to workers in general, specific measures should be taken in which a detailed and precise definition is given of the reasons justifying termination of employment; also, a consultation with, an advisory opinion from, or agreement of an independent body, public or private, or a joint body, before the dismissal of a worker becomes final; and a special recourse procedure open to workers' representatives who consider that their employment has been unjustifiably terminated.