95 Considerations of the Court 146. Article 15 of the Convention establishes that [t]he right of peaceful assembly, without arms, is recognized. No restrictions may be placed on the exercise of this right other than those imposed in conformity with the law and necessary in a democratic society in the interest of national security, public safety or public order, or to protect public health or morals or the rights or freedom of others. 147. In the instant case, the State always maintained that the right to assembly was never thwarted, and that the measures in relationship to the work stoppage of December 5, 1990, were adopted because it attempted against democracy and the constitutional order. In any event, it is the duty of the Court to analyse whether or not the right to assembly was violated by the State. 148. According to the entirety of the evidence in the instant case, the December 4, 1990, march took place without any interruptions or restrictions. It is also shown that the letters of dismissal of the workers do not mention the march, and in most of the cases they declare non-subsistent the appointments of the public servants who took part in the “organisation, convocation or implementation of a national work stoppage that took place December 5, 1990.” 149. No proof emerges from the entirety of the evidence in the instant case that indicates that the dismissed workers would have in any way been interfered with in their right to gather in “peaceful assembly, without arms.” Furthermore, and as has already been said, not only was the December 4, 1990, march -a clear expression of the right under consideration- not prohibited or interfered with in any manner, but it was, according to several testimonies gathered by the Tribunal, accompanied by agents of the public force, who ensured normal development thereof. 150. By virtue of the preceding arguments, the Court concludes that the State did not violate, to the detriment of the 270 workers listed in paragraph 4 of this Judgment, the right to assembly established in Article 15 of the American Convention. XII VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 16 FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION Arguments of the Commission 151. Concerning Article 16 of the Convention, the Commission argued that: a) Law 25 does not prohibit the freedom of association, but if the workers of the State exercise it, the cited Law penalises them for it. This Law imposed sanctions on those who legitimately exercised such freedom; b) the demonstration and the convocation to a work stoppage were legitimate activities inherent to the exercise of the freedom of trade union