108. Article 23.1 of the Convention establishes that Every citizen shall enjoy the following rights and opportunities, which must be guaranteed by the State under equal conditions: i) to take part in the conduct of public affairs, directly or through freely chosen representatives; ii) to vote and to be elected in genuine periodic elections, which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and by secret ballot that guarantees the free expression of the will of the voters; and iii) to have access, under general conditions of equality, to the public service of his country. Article 23.2 of the Convention establishes that law may regulate the exercise of the rights and opportunities referred to in the preceding paragraph only on the basis of age, nationality, residence, language, education, civil and mental capacity, or sentencing by a competent court in criminal proceedings. In this regard, political rights are not absolute and may be subject to regulation, provided that this regulation complies with “the principles of legality, necessity, and proportionality in a democratic society.”143 109. The established grounds include “conviction, by a competent judge, in a criminal case.” In this case, the restriction in question was imposed through a criminal conviction, based on Article 16 of the Venezuelan Criminal Code, which states that, “Penalties additional to incarceration include: 1.- Disqualification from voting and from holding political office for the duration of the sentence […].” Nevertheless, the IACHR has already noted that the effects of the case itself and the sentence imposed were particularly excessive in relation to the aim of protecting the public servant’s right to honor. This is certainly evident with respect to the restriction on the exercise of political rights, which was improperly extended beyond the duration of the sentence, and on the electoral rights inherent in the alleged victim’s activities as a teacher and active member of the professors’ association of a national public university (supra para. **). In this regard, although political disqualification pursuant to a criminal conviction is recognized in the American Convention, the IACHR finds that its use as an additional measure is not justified by the nature of the offense for which Tulio Álvarez was convicted, and considers that it was disproportionate in this case for the reasons stated in the section above. 110. In addition, by rejecting Tulio Álvarez’s petition for a constitutional remedy [amparo] seeking to allow him to participate in the elections of the professors’ association of the Central University of Venezuela—in spite of the existing judgment granting him full release due to the completion of his sentence (which had previously been conditionally suspended)—the State clearly violated his right to effective judicial protection, recognized in Article 25 of the Convention.144 111. Consequently, the Inter-American Commission concludes that the State violated Articles 23 and 25 of the American Convention, in relation to the general obligations provided for in Article 1.1 of the Convention, to the detriment of Tulio Álvarez. C. Right to a Fair Trial (Article 8) and Freedom of Movement and Residence (Article 22), in relation to Article 1.1 of the American Convention 112. Article 8 of the Convention stipulates, in pertinent part, that: 1. Every person has the right to a hearing […] by a competent, independent, and impartial tribunal […]. 2. Every person accused of a criminal offense has the right to be presumed innocent so long as his guilt has not been proven according to law. During the proceedings, every person is entitled, with full equality, to the following minimum guarantees: 143 I/A Court H.R., Case of Castañeda Gutman v. Mexico. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of August 6, 2008. Series C No. 184, para. 174. 144 Article 25.1 of the Convention provides: “Everyone has the right to simple and prompt recourse, or any other effective recourse, to a competent court or tribunal for protection against acts that violate his fundamental rights recognized by the constitution or laws of the state concerned or by this Convention, even though such violation may have been committed by persons acting in the course of their official duties.”