45 established in Articles 11(1) and 11(2) of the American Convention, in relation to the obligation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Arlei José Escher, Dalton Luciano de Vargas, Delfino José Becker, Pedro Alves Cabral and Celso Aghinoni. Moreover, a possible violation of the American Convention with regard to the alleged flaws in the investigation of the facts of the instant case will be examined in Chapter IX of this judgment, corresponding to Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention. VIII ARTICLE 16 (FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION)152 IN RELATION TO ARTICLE 1(1) (OBLIGATION TO RESPECT RIGHTS) OF THE AMERICAN CONVENTION 165. The Commission underscored “the State’s obligation not to interfere in the exercise of the right to hold meetings or form associations, [and] the obligation to adopt, in certain circumstances, positive measures to ensure the effective exercise [of this right].” It claimed that restrictions to freedom of association constitute “serious obstacles to the possibility of individuals defending their rights, presenting their claims, and seeking change or a solution to the problems that affect them.” Also, “arbitrary interference in the communications of individuals [belonging to an association] restricts not only the freedom of association of the individual, but also the right and the liberty of a specific group to associate freely, without fear.” Freedom to form associations and to try and achieve certain collective purposes is indivisible, so that a restriction to the possibility of forming associations represents an explicit limit to the right of the collectivity to achieve its goals. The State’s security forces may need to conduct legally-approved intelligence operations to combat crime and protect the constitutional order. However, these actions are legitimate when they constitute a measure that is strictly necessary to safeguard the democratic institutions, and when adequate guarantees exist to prevent abuse. In the instant case “both the interception, and the monitoring and recording of the victims’ telephone communications, were carried out in order to control their associative activities, and the dissemination of these communications, protected by judicial confidentiality, was done expressly to detract from the legitimacy of the work of the associations of which the victims were members.” Owing to “the nature of their activities, as well as the tendency to harass the defenders and representatives of the landless workers, […] the Commission considered that the interventions, the monitoring, and the dissemination of [the] information in question constituted a veiled means of restricting the freedom of association [of the victims].” Consequently, it asked the Court to declare the violation of Article 16 of the American Convention. 166. The representatives agreed with the Commission and added that, in this case, the violation “was clearly characterized by the criminalization and harassment of the human rights defenders and the social movements [in] order to demoralize and […] silence the movements’ leaders […].” The right to freedom of association of the members of COANA and ADECON was violated owing to the “attacks on the victims by the Judiciary – represented by Judge [Khater] – and the Executive – represented by members of the Military Police and by the [former Secretary of Security] – [who created] serious obstacles for the organizations to promote human rights, specifically ‘the right to land.’” The representatives claimed that the State’s actions prejudiced the activities of COANA and ADECON, not only because they affected the reputation of the said associations, but also 152 Article 16 of the Convention establishes: 1. Everyone has the right to associate freely for ideological, religious, political, economic, labor, social, cultural, sports, or other purposes. 2. The exercise of this right shall be subject only to such restrictions established by law as may be 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 and freedoms of others. 3. The provisions of this Article do not bar the imposition of legal restrictions, including even deprivation of the exercise of the right of association, on members of the armed forces and the police.