against the alleged victim was suitable, necessary, and strictly proportionate to ensure the attainment of the objective. 112. As for the suitability of the measure, the Commission considers that, in some particular circumstances, dismissal could be an appropriate means of penalizing reprehensible worker’s conduct, and allows for the protection of a harmonious workplace and its hierarchical order. 113. Nevertheless, as noted earlier, Mr. Lagos del Campo’s statements were made in his capacity as a representative of the workers of the Industrial Community before the organization’s Electoral Committee. In that respect, the alleged victim’s statements should be understood as part of his work as a representative of a group of workers,68 which—as previously explained—enjoy greater protection under the American Convention. 114. Indeed, is clear from a comprehensive reading of the interview published in the magazine “La Razón” that the purpose of the alleged victim’s statements was to expose and call attention to acts of improper interference by the employers in the workers’ organizations at the manufacturing company and in the internal elections of the Industrial Community. 115. His statements were made after, on April 26, 1989, in his capacity as President of the Electoral Committee of the Industrial Community, he complained to the Participation Office of the Ministry of Industry of irregularities in the calling of elections for the members of the Industrial Community Board and the employee representatives to the company’s Board of Directors, scheduled to be held on April 28. As reflected in the established facts, on June 9, 1989, the Participation Office of the Ministry of Industry found that the challenge to the election was well-founded. 116. The elections had the ability to affect the exercise of the workers’ rights, because according to Decree Law 21789, the objectives of the Industrial Community included strengthening the industrial corporation through employee participation in its management and productive process, and in the ownership of company assets (Art. 3). 117. The IACHR finds that the special protection of the speech of workers’ representatives is especially important during the internal election processes of these kinds of organizations. Broad and uninhibited democratic speech is certainly necessary to comply with the fundamental principle that workers must have the right to choose their representatives freely.69 The international law and scholarship on this issue has recognized that the right of workers to elect representatives is “an indispensable condition for them to be able to act effectively with full independence and effectively promote the interests of their members.” In the opinion of the Inter-American Commission, the free expression of opinions and dissemination of information during this process is an essential tool for shaping the opinion and will of organized workers, and it allows for greater transparency and oversight in the election process. 118. The importance of the right to freedom of expression in electoral contexts has been recognized by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in its judgment in the case of Ricardo Canese v. Paraguay. In that judgment, the Court held that freedom of expression is “the cornerstone for […] debate during the electoral process” and recognized that in those contexts “opinions and criticisms are issued in a more open, intense and dynamic way, according to the principles of democratic pluralism.”70 68 Regarding this point, the State’s argument that the petitioner did not have the support of other workers to do the interview is irrelevant. Demanding this “support” prior to any statement would be like trying to have the workers’ union come to an agreement every time one of their representatives is going to speak. Furthermore, this is impossible in practice, and would end up suppressing the spirit of the labor organization. 69 ILO. Convention concerning Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise, 1948 (No. 87). Article 3 provides that: “1. Workers' and employers' organisations shall have the right to draw up their constitutions and rules, to elect their representatives in full freedom, to organise their administration and activities and to formulate their programmes.” 70 I/A Court H.R., Case of Ricardo Canese v. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 31, 2004. Series C No. 111. Para. 88 22