Therefore, the numerous appeals filed by the State against the decision authorizing the count by the General Labor Inspectorate, and its lack of diligence in implementing that decision, constituted an arbitrary obstruction by the State of the exercise of the right to strike by the former workers of the Judiciary. 123. With respect to the violation of freedom of association and freedom to organize, this Court notes that neither the Commission nor the representative expressly alleged the violation of these rights in this case. However, under the iura novit curia principle, 135 and given the close relationship that exists between the aforementioned rights (see supra paras. 110 to 115) the Court will rule on these violations in connection with the right to strike. 124. Indeed, in the instant case, the Court finds that a significant number of the alleged victims were Judiciary workers who, in the exercise of their rights to freedom of association and freedom to organize, had joined the STOJ. 136 Between March 19 and April 2, 1996, members of the STOJ went on strike, which was declared illegal and as a result of this declaration, the 65 alleged victims were dismissed, including some who were union leaders and who, therefore, enjoyed union privilege (immunity from dismissal) established in Article 223 of the Labor Code. This Court has already stated that trade unions and their representatives enjoy specific protection for the effective performance of their functions, since freedom of association in trade union matters is of the utmost importance for the defense of the legitimate interests of workers and is part of the corpus juris of human rights. 137 Therefore, the Court concludes that the declaration of illegality of the strike not only violated the right to strike but also the right to freedom of association and freedom to organize of the 65 alleged victims in this case. 125. Finally, in view of the requirement established by Guatemalan legislation at the time of the facts that a count had to be carried out and that this must reflect the participation of at least twothirds of the workers, the Court deems it appropriate to analyze whether these preconditions for opting for the strike mechanism are reasonable and do not affect the essential content of the right to strike, freedom of association and freedom to organize. In this regard, the ILO Committee on Freedom of Association has already commented on the impact of this requirement on the right to strike and on union activities: “With regard to the majority vote required by one law for the calling of a legal strike (two-thirds of the total number of members of the union or branch concerned), non-compliance with which might entail a penalty by the administrative authorities, including the dissolution of the union, the Committee recalls the conclusions of the Committee of Experts (…) that such legal provisions constitute an intervention by the public authorities in the activities of trade unions which is of such a nature as to restrict the rights of these organizations, contrary to Article 3 of the Convention (Convention 87).” 138 126. Indeed, the requirement of such a high rate of participation in the action makes a legal strike impossible in practice, so that its imposition implies an arbitrary restriction of the right to strike, of freedom of association and of freedom to organize. collective bargaining from materializing or delayed the procedure required to implement it.” (Letter from MINUGUA to Víctor Hugo Godoy, president of COPRODEH of March 15, 2000, evidence file folio 625). 135 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 163 and Case of González et al. v. Venezuela. Merits and reparations. Judgment of September 20, 2021. Series C No. 436, para. 144. 136 According to the information provided by the Commission, 51 of the 65 alleged victims were members of the STOJ. Five expressly stated that they were not members and there is no information with respect to nine of them. 137 Case of Baena Ricardo et al. v. Panama, supra, para. 158, and Advisory Opinion OC-27/21, supra, para. 72. 138 ILO. Compilation of decisions of the Committee on Freedom of Association, supra, para. 805. 36