- 65 - Patricia Torres Linares and Claudia Hernández Martínez, or to assist demonstrators who were injured as in the case of Mariana Selvas Gómez and Georgina Edith Rosales (supra paras. 75 and ff.). The Court considers that, since they formed part of the protest, these seven victims were exercising their right of assembly. Therefore, it will analyze the use of force against them in light of the right recognized in Article 15 of the Convention. In this regard, the Court takes note of the opinion of the former United Nations Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association, according to which “when the violation of the right to freedom of peaceful assembly is an enabling factor or even a determining factor or a pre-condition for the violation of other rights […], inevitably the right to freedom of peaceful assembly if also affected and this should be recognized.”257 In addition, as in the case of other rights with a social dimension, he underscored that the violation by the authorities of the rights of the participants in a meeting or assembly, “has a seriously chilling effect on future meetings or assemblies,” because people may choose to abstain in order to protect themselves from these abuses; in addition to being contrary to the State obligation to facilitate and to create favorable environments for people to be able to enjoy their right of assembly.258 173. Regarding freedom of expression, the violation of which was alleged by the representatives in their brief with final arguments (supra para. 154), the Court finds that both rights (the right of assembly and the right to freedom of expression) are intrinsically connected. As previously mentioned, the exercise of the right of assembly is a form of exercising freedom of expression.259 Nevertheless, the Court considers that each of these rights contained in the Convention has its own sphere, meaning and scope260 and should be interpreted and applied taking into account its specificity. In the Court’s opinion, the violation of the right of assembly could give rise to a violation of freedom of expression. However, for an autonomous violation of freedom of expression to occur, distinct from the inherent content of the right of assembly, it would be necessary to prove that freedom of expression was violated in addition to the intrinsic harm to the violation of the right of assembly that has been declared. In this case, the facts relate to the use of force to prevent and disperse a protest. Neither the Commission nor the representatives have alleged any specific restriction of the expressions or opinions of the eleven women, beyond their right to be present in the protest. Consequently, it is not appropriate to make an autonomous analysis or evaluation of freedom of expression. 174. Based on the foregoing considerations, the Court must examine the factual circumstances of this case as a possible inappropriate restriction of the right of assembly in the case of the seven victims mentioned above (para. 172). In this regard, the Court recalls that the right of assembly is not an absolute right and may be subject to restrictions, provided these are not abusive or arbitrary; therefore, they must be established by law, pursue a legitimate purpose (which is Expert opinion provided by affidavit by Maina Kiai, former United Nations Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association, on October 31, 2017 (evidence file, folio 37344). 257 Expert opinion provided by affidavit by Maina Kiai, former United Nations Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association, on October 31, 2017 (evidence file, folios 37344 and 37359). 258 Indeed, the European Court has recognized that the protection of freedom of thought and expression is one of the purposes of the right of assembly. Cf. ECHR, Case of Taranenko v. Russia, No. 19554/05. Judgment of May 15, 2014, para. 64; Case of Women on Waves and Others v. Portugal, No 31276/05. Judgment of February 3, 2009, para. 28; Case of Galystan v. Armenia, No. 26986/03. Judgment of November 15, 2007, paras. 95 and 96; Case of Stankov and the United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden v. Bulgaria, Nos. 29221/95 and 29225/95. Judgment of October 2, 2001, para. 85, and Case of Ezelin v. France, No. 11800/85. Judgment of April 26, 1991, para. 37. 259 Cf. Case of Manuel Cepeda Vargas v. Colombia. Preliminary objections, merits and reparations. Judgment of May 26, 2010. Series C No. 213, para. 171, and Case of Liakat Ali Alibux v. Suriname. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of January 30, 2014. Series C No. 276, para. 119. 260