- 64 - 169. Specifically in relation to the eleven victims in this case, no information or evidence has been provided that any of them were committing violent acts, resisting authority in any way, or carrying weapons. To the contrary, the information provided reveals that the eleven women were behaving peacefully or protecting themselves when they were detained (infra paras. 172 and 236). According to uncontested facts, the eleven women victims of the State’s use of force in this case were not behaving in any way that required the use of force against them. 170. Therefore, in this case, it is clear that the use of force by the police authorities was not legitimate or necessary; moreover, it was also excessive and unacceptable owing to the characteristics described below regarding the discriminatory and sexual nature of the abuse suffered. The Court concludes that the State’s indiscriminate use of force in this case, resulting from the absence of adequate regulation, a lack of training of the agents, an ineffective supervision and monitoring of the operation, and an erroneous belief that the violence of some people justified the use of force against everyone, entailed violations of Articles 5 and 11 of the Convention, in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 of this instrument, to the detriment of the eleven women in this case. B.1.2 Right of assembly 171. The right to protest or to demonstrate discontent with a State action or decision is protected by the right of assembly recognized in Article 15 of the American Convention. Even though neither the Commission nor the representatives alleged the violation of this right at the opportune moment, this Court considers that, in application of the iura novit curia principle, in this case it is also appropriate to analyze the use of force in light of the right of assembly. Under Article 15 of the American Convention “[t]he right of peaceful assembly, without arms, is recognized” and this refers to both private assemblies and assemblies in public spaces, whether they are held in one place or include marches.254 The possibility of demonstrating publicly and peacefully is one of the most accessible ways of exercising the right to freedom of expression, through which the protection of other rights can be demanded. 255 Therefore, the right of assembly is a fundamental right in a democratic society and should not be interpreted restrictively. 256 172. In the instant case, the use of force referred to above occurred in the context of demonstrations or protests initiated because some flower sellers were unhappy with their relocation, and also the demands of the FPDT (supra paras. 56 and ff.). Most of the victims in this case formed part of the protest, to the extent that they had travelled intentionally to Texcoco or San Salvador de Atenco to take part in it, either to cover the events as reporters, which was the case of Norma Aidé Jiménez Osorio and Suhelen Gabriela Cuevas Jaramillo; to document the events as part of their studies, which was the case of Bárbara Italia Méndez Moreno, Angélica Case of López Lone et al. v. Honduras. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of October 5, 2015. Series C No. 302, para. 167 citing Cf. ECHR, Case of Djavit An v. Turkey, No, 20652/92. Judgment of February 20, 2003, para. 56, and Case of Yilmaz Yildiz and Others. v. Turkey, No. 4524/06. Judgment of October 14, 2014, para. 41. 254 Case of López Lone et al. v. Honduras. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of October 5, 2015. Series C No. 302, para. 167 citing Cf. UN, Resolution of the Human Rights Council on the promotion and protection of human rights in the context of peaceful protests. A/HRC/RES/19/35, March 23, 2012; Resolution of the Human Rights Council on the promotion and protection of human rights in the context of peaceful protests. A/HRC/RES/22/10, March 21, 2013, and Resolution of the Human Rights Council on the promotion and protection of human rights in the context of peaceful protests. A/HRC/25/L.20, March 24, 2014. 255 Case of López Lone et al. v. Honduras. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of October 5, 2015. Series C No. 302, para. 167 citing ECHR, Case of Djavit An v. Turkey, No, 20652/92. Judgment of February 20, 2003, para. 56, and Case of Yilmaz Yildiz and Others. v. Turkey, No. 4524/06. Judgment of October 14, 2014, para. 41. 256