b ) That the ends for which the restriction has been established be legitimate, that is, that they pursue “reasons of general interest” and do not stray from the “purpose for which (they) have been established.” This teleological criterion, the analysis of which has not been requested here, establishes control for abuse of power, and c ) That such restrictions be established by laws and applied pursuant to them. (Underlining added) 127. In addition, in Advisory Opinion OC-8/87, it was considered:173 39. The Court should also point out that since it is improper to suspend guarantees without complying with the conditions referred to in the preceding paragraph, it follows that the specific measures applicable to the rights or freedoms that have been suspended may also not violate these general principles. Such violation would occur, for example, if the measures taken infringed the legal regime of the state of emergency, if they lasted longer than the time limit specified, if they were manifestly irrational, unnecessary or disproportionate, or if, in adopting them, there was a misuse or abuse of power (underlining added). 128. In the case of Apitz Barbera et al. v. Venezuela, the ICourtHR alluded to this concept when stating that:174 In sum, although in this case it has not been proved that the CFRSJ acted with abuse of power, directly pressured by the Executive to dismiss the victims, the Court concludes that, owing to the removal at will of the members of the CFRSJ, the due guarantee did not exist to ensure that the pressure brought to bear on the First Court did not influence the decisions of the disciplinary organ (underlining added). E) Regarding the use of this mechanisms and the case law of the European Court of Human Rights 129. Taking into account the conceptualization of the abuse of power, it is clear that in order to determine whether this has been constituted in a specific case, it is necessary to analyze the real purpose behind the act. Regarding this aspect, in paragraph 210 of the Judgment, the ICourtHR indicated that: Thus, in the instant case, the Court finds it necessary to examine the context in which the facts surrounding the removal of the judges from office occurred, because this will be useful to understand the reasons or grounds on which this decision was made. This is because the reason or purpose of a specific decision of the State authorities is relevant for the legal analysis of a case, since a purpose or reason that differs from the norm that grants the State authority the power to act, may reveal whether the action can be considered an arbitrary act.175 In this regard, the Court bases itself on the 173 Advisory Opinion OC-8/87, of January 30, 1987 (Habeas Corpus in Emergency Situations (Arts. 27.2, 25(1) and 7.6 American Convention on Human Rights), requested by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, para. 39. 174 Case of Apitz Barbera et al. (“First Contentious Administrative Court”) v. Venezuela. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 5, 2008. Series C No. 182, para. 147. 175 In this regard, the European Court of Human Rights has taken into account the real purpose or grounds that the State authorities had when exercising their functions, in order to determine whether there had been a violation of the European Convention on Human Rights. For example, in the Case of Gusinskiy v. Russia, the European Court considered that the restriction of the victim’s detention authorized by Article 5.1(c) of the European Convention, was not only applied to make him appear before the competent judicial authority, because it was considered that there were reasonable indications that he had committed an offense, but also in order to oblige him to sell his company to the State. In the Case of Cebotari v. Moldova, it declared that Article 18 of the European Convention had been violated because the Government had not been able to convince the Court that it had a reasonable suspicion to consider that the applicant had committed a crime, and the said Court concluded that the real purpose of the criminal proceeding and the detention of the applicant was to pressure him and thus prevent his company “Oferta Plus” from pursuing its application before the Court. Lastly, in the Case of Lutsenko v. Ukraine, the European Court determined that the applicant’s detention, authorized by Article 5.1(c), had been executed not only in order to ensure his appearance before the competent judicial authority, because there were 37