28 79. Regarding judicial guarantees, the representatives asserted that the obligation to give reasoned decisions had been violated in both the labor proceeding and in the proceeding on the application for amparo. In addition, they argued that the right to be heard by a judge or court had been violated because the Second Labor Court had not processed Mr. Lagos del Campo’s observations and arguments until after it had delivered judgment. They indicated that the right to be heard included not only the possibility of the evidence being examined, but also that of the arguments of the parties being analyzed, and that this had constituted a limitation of the right to contradict the statements and arguments made by the company. 80. The State indicated that, since Mr. Lagos del Campo was not a labor union leader, he was not entitled to “greater protection” and his statements were not a matter of public interest. It argued that the fact that the information was relevant for the workers to form an opinion on the situation of the elections made it even more important that such information should not be false or biased. The State also indicated that the Commission had disregarded the importance of generating a respectful discussion of opinions and information. In this regard, it indicated that the Committee on Freedom of Association of the Governing Body of the International Labour Organization (ILO) had indicated that trade unions “should respect the limits of propriety and refrain from the use of insulting language.” It argued that the Commission had not analyzed the limits to the use of certain expressions, ignoring the fact that it is necessary to weigh the right to freedom of expression against the right to honor. It also indicated that the Commission had tried to transfer to the “private third party” not only the responsibility for requesting a rectification, but also for corroborating the statement that had been made and proving serious harm. This would have made the defense of those who considered that their honor had been violated unmanageable and unrealistic. Moreover, the Commission had failed to indicate that, if the presumed victim considered that the interview had not reflected his words faithfully, he could have requested a rectification, and he did not do this. The European Court’s case law had recognized that employees had an obligation of loyalty towards their employer, even though this was not absolute. In addition, the European Court had differentiated criticism and insult, stating that the employer could use his disciplinary authority when he was insulted by an employee. The State argued that, in the instant case, it was not possible to consider that the statements of the presumed victim were objective criticisms, because he had used injurious terms such as “blackmail” and “coercion.” Lastly, it indicated that, in order to analyze the proportionality of the sanction, it should be considered that Mr. Lagos del Campo had been suspended for acts of insubordination in 1985, a measure that the Labor Directorate had considered justified. 81. Regarding judicial guarantees, the State considered that although the court proceedings did not use the same terminology used by the Commission, this did not mean that the Peruvian courts did not weigh the factors mentioned. Indeed, the Second Labor Court of Lima had assessed the statements published in “La Razón” and found that they contained phrases that were injurious for employer and co-workers. Also, that court took into consideration other elements, such as Mr. Lagos del Campo’s recidivism and that the presumed victim could have requested a rectification and did not do so. Moreover, it is incomprehensible to claim that the domestic courts should have analyzed the case based on a test of proportionality that did not even exist at the time – more than 20 years ago. Regarding the argument of the right to be heard, the State indicated that, even though the brief that Mr. Lagos del Campo submitted to the Second Labor Court was only processed after the judgment, it did not contain probative elements, but rather legal arguments and many of these had been included in previous briefs presented by the plaintiff; therefore, this did not violate his right to defense. 2. Freedom of association 82. The Commission argued that, in the workplace, the protection of freedom of expression is especially relevant when it is related to freedom of association for labor-related purposes, because the protection of the right of workers to express themselves in order to impart