fosters the transparency of government activities and promotes the responsibility of government employees in the management of public affairs.47 76. The IACHR has affirmed that within the sphere of the American Convention, freedom of expression is the right of all persons, under equal conditions and without discrimination. According to the Court’s case law, the entitlement to the right to freedom of expression enshrined in the Convention cannot be restricted to a specific profession or group of people, nor to the sphere of press freedom.48 77. This expansive perspective on entitlement to the right to freedom of thought and expression adopted by the American Convention includes, of course, workers. As a fundamental human right, freedom of expression governs all types of legal relationships, including labor relations. Workers do not set aside their fundamental rights upon assuming their positions; rather, they enjoy—just like everyone else—a broad right to freedom of expression. 78. Indeed, when exercised in the workplace, freedom of expression protects the workers’ right to express their thoughts, opinions, information, or personal ideas, as well as to level criticism and to complain about the working conditions at a company and the protection of their rights in general. This includes the guarantee of doing so without being subject to punishment in retaliation, the most drastic of which is wrongful dismissal. 79. This is especially relevant when the right to freedom of expression is tied to the right of association enshrined in Article 16 of the American Convention, and the right of workers to organize trade unions in accordance with Article 8 of the Additional Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights in the Area of Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights “Protocol of San Salvador.” The protection of the freedom of workers to express themselves in a way that allows them to disclose information and promote their interests and demands in a concerted manner is one of the objectives of the right of association in this sphere. To this point, the Inter-American Court has held that, “Labor-related freedom of association is not exhausted by the theoretical recognition of the right to form trade unions, but also corresponds, inseparably, to the right to use any appropriate means to exercise this freedom. […] Hence the importance of adapting to the Convention the legal regime applicable to trade unions and the State’s actions, or those that occur with it tolerance, that could render this right inoperative in practice.”49 80. The Court affirmed in Advisory Opinion OC-5 that the right to freedom of expression is also a conditio sine qua non for the development of […] trade unions.”50 81. In view of the above, the IACHR finds that members and officers of labor unions must enjoy broad freedom of expression in relation to their activities and demands, which includes the freedom to criticize the economic and social policies of the government. If the members and leaders of trade unions are denied the opportunity to express themselves freely, to disseminate information in defense of their interests, and communicate it to their employers and the company’s employees, as well as to the government and the general public, they are deprived of one of the most important lawful means of action and pressure. The dual dimension of the right to freedom of expression lays the groundwork for the right of organized workers and labor leaders to express themselves and convey opinions and information, as well as the right of workers and society in general to receive the information that they put out. 82. The Committee on Freedom of Association of the Governing Body of the ILO has recognized that “The full exercise of trade union rights calls for a free flow of information, opinions and ideas, and to this end workers, employers and their organizations should enjoy freedom of opinion and expression at their I/A Court H.R., Case of Kimel v. Argentina. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 2, 2008 Series C No. 177, para. 87. I/A Court H.R., Case of Tristán Donoso v. Panama. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of January 27, 2009. Series C No. 193, para. 114. See also, IACHR, Report No. 103/13, Case 12.816, Honduras, Adán Guillermo López Lone et al. March 17, 2014, para. 201. 49 I/A Court H.R., Case of Huilca Tecse v. Peru. Judgment of March 3, 2005. Series C No. 121. 50 I/A Court H.R., Compulsory Membership in an Association Prescribed by Law for the Practice of Journalism (Arts. 13 and 29 American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-5/85 of November 13, 1985. Series A No. 5. 47 48 16