his dismissal when he served as chairman of the Electoral Committee of the company’s Industrial Community “constituted a serious violation of his right to freedom of opinion, expression and dissemination of thought, established by Article 4, section 2 of the Constitution, as well as a serious interference with his activities as an organized worker”. He also argued that “all workers, particularly those who hold union or communty office, as in his case, have not only the right but the need to be informed and disseminate information on their activities and the situation of their workplace¨. The Commission notes that Mr. Lagos del Campo argued before the labor courts that his dismissal was part of an “internal plan to systematically obstruct and restrict the exercise of communal and trade union rights and is the culmination of a chain of actions of harrassment that the [company] has been carried out against him, on the ground that he held positions of union and worker representation and [his] ongoing activities defending the rights of workers of CEPER SA, rejecting and denouncing violations of labor, as well as anti-union and anti workers acts by the company”. In the rulings there is no analysis of these allegations. 125. The judges, in exercise of its jurisdictional duties, were called upon to examine the necessity of the restriction in a democratic society and to weigh Mr. Lagos del Campo’s right to freedom of expression against the right to honor and reputation of the company’s directors74. Nevertheless, the judges expressed the opinion, without further explanation, that “The Constitution of Peru guarantees freedom of expression, but not to insult the personal honor and dignity of the employer company’s senior staff.” 126. In particular, the Commission observes that the authorities did not take into account that the complainant was a worker’s representative and that his speech was of clear public interest. They also failed to appreciate that the severity of a dismissal has clear prejudicial effects on the right of workers’ organizations and their leaders to advocate for the rights and interests of the people they represent, and has a chilling effect on other labor leaders who may fear losing their jobs. In these cases, an arbitrary dismissal not only severely restricts freedom of expression of an individual, but also produces a chilling effect on the right of a particular group of workers to associate freely to defend their interests without fear or fear of reprisals. 127. The above is related to the duty of the courts to state the grounds for their decisions. On this point, the IACHR recalls that, according to the Inter-American case law, “The obligation to provide [the reasoning for a decision] is a guarantee associated with the proper administration of justice, which protects the right of citizens to be tried for the reasons that the law provides, and grants credibility to the legal decisions within the framework of a democratic society.” In this respect, the Inter-American Court has held that the legal reasoning of a judgment “should [make known the] facts, reasons and regulations [that were the basis for the authority’s decision, in order to] rule out any [indications] of arbitrariness.”75 In addition, it must demonstrate that the courts have properly examined the “specific reasons and grounds regarding the seriousness and magnitude of the fault allegedly committed […] and the proportionality of the sanction imposed.”76 128. In this case, the domestic courts clearly failed to provide reasons for their decisions and to properly and independently assess the evidence. In practical terms, the court decision that upheld the dismissal was equivalent to a mere rubber-stamp approval of the measure taken by the employer. The Peruvian courts failed to safeguard the minimum requirements of stating the reasons for their decisions, which affected Mr. Lagos del Campo’s enjoyment of his rights. 129. For all of the foregoing reasons, the Inter-American Commission concludes that the Peruvian State is responsible for failing to protect Mr. Alfredo Lagos del Campo’s right to freedom of expression, contained in Article 13 of the American Convention, in relation to Articles 1.1, 2 and 16.1 thereto. I/A Court H.R., Case of Kimel V. Argentina. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of May 2, 2008 Serie C No. 177, para. 63. I/A Court H.R., Case of López Mendoza v. Venezuela. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of September 1, 2011. Series C No. 233, para. 141. 76 I/A Court H.R., Case of López Mendoza v. Venezuela. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of September 1, 2011. Series C No. 233, para. 149. 74 75 24