51 who are freely elected by the workers of the undertaking in accordance with the provisions of national laws or regulations or of collective agreements and whose functions do not include activities which are recognized as the exclusive prerogative of trade unions in the country concerned.”230 160. Similarly, it has been interpreted that the representatives of the workers of an undertaking should enjoy effective protection against any act that could prejudice them, including dismissal based on their condition as workers’ representatives, or on their activities arising from this representation.231 Also, the national authorities must ensure that disproportionate penalties do not dissuade the representatives from seeking to express and defend the workers’ interests. 232 161. On this point, the Court has verified that Mr. Lagos del Campo was dismissed owing to the complaints made in the context of an electoral process that the presumed victim, together with other workers, were called on to supervise. Additionally, it is a proven fact that, as a result of his dismissal, Mr. Lagos del Campo was unable to continue his work representing the workers on the Electoral Committee, and could not even attend a meeting that he himself, in the exercise of his functions, had convened on June 27, 1989, before being dismissed (supra, para. 53); also he was not able to continue being a member of the Industrial Community since he no longer worked for the company. In this regard, the Court notes that the Second Labor Court of Lima, in its decision of August 8, 1991, in which it classified the presumed victim’s dismissal as “legal and justified” (supra para. 60), ratified a sanction that had an impact on the possibility of Mr. Lagos del Campo being able to continue to work for the said company and to represent the interests of the other workers. 162. In addition, the Court has established that freedom of association has two dimensions, because it relates both to the right of the individual to associate freely and to use the appropriate means to exercise this freedom, and to the right of the members of a group to achieve certain objectives together and to benefit from them. 233 The Court has also established that the rights derived from representing the interests of a group are twofold, because they relate both to the right of the individual who exercises the mandate or appointment, and the right of the collectivity to be represented, so that the violation of the right of the former (the representative) results in the violation of the right of the latter (the person or collectivity represented). 234 Consequently, the Court finds that the dismissal of Mr. Lagos del Campo transcended the violation of his individual right to freedom of association, because it deprived the workers of the Industrial Community of the representation of one of their leaders, especially in the election that should have been held under his supervision as president of the Electoral Committee. The Court also notes that, since Mr. Lagos del Campo’s dismissal was carried out in reprisal for his representation work, this could have had an intimidating and threatening impact on the other members of the Industrial Community. 163. Based on the above, the Court concludes that the State is responsible for the violation of Articles 16(1) and 26 in relation to Articles 1(1), 13 and 8 of the American Convention, to the detriment of Mr. Lagos del Campo. 230 Convention on Worker’s Representatives, supra, Article 3(b). Cf. ILO, Recommendation on Workers’ Representatives, 1971 (No. 143), supra, paragraph 5, and mutatis mutandis, ECHR, Case of Csánics v. Hungary, No. 12188/06. Judgment of January 20, 2009; ECHR, Case of Szima v. Hungary, No. 29723/11. Judgment of October 9, 2012, and ECHR, Case of Heinisch v. Germany, No. 28274/08. Judgment of July 21, 2011. 231 232 ECHR. Case of Palomo Sánchez and Others v. Spain [GS], supra, para. 56. Cf. Case of Huilca Tecse v. Peru, supra, paras. 70 to 72, and Case of Cantoral Huamaní and García Santa Cruz v. Peru, supra, para. 148. 233 Mutatis mutandis, Case of Chitay Nech et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 25, 2010. Series C No. 212, para. 115. 234