24 72. The two above-mentioned dimensions (supra paras. 69, 70 and 71) of freedom of association must be guaranteed simultaneously, respecting the restrictions allowed in paragraph 2 of Article 16 of the Convention. 73. In the Baena Ricardo et al. case, the Court indicated: […] freedom of association, in the case of trade unions, is essential for the defense of the legitimate interests of the workers and is framed within the corpus juris of human rights.15 74. The Court recalls the contents of the Protocol of San Salvador of November 17, 1977, and of ILO Convention No. 87 concerning freedom of association ad protection of the right to organize of June 17, 1948, which, in their Articles 8(1)(a) and 11, respectively, includes the obligation of the State to allow trade unions, federations and confederations to function freely. Peru ratified ILO Convention No. 87 on March 2, 1960. 75. The ILO Committee on Freedom of Association has stated that: Freedom of association can only exercised in a situation in which fundamental human rights are fully guaranteed and respected, particularly those related to the life and safety of the individual.16 76. The European Court of Human Rights has stated that the effective exercise of freedom of association cannot: ... be reduced to a mere obligation on the part of the State not to interfere; a merely negative concept would not be compatible with the object and purpose of Article 11 [of the European Convention, which] on some occasions requires the adoption of positive measures, even in the sphere of relations between individuals, should the case merit it.17 77. The Court considers that the content of freedom of association implies the power to choose how to exercise it.18 In this regard, an individual does not enjoy the full exercise of the freedom of association, if, in reality, this power is inexistent or is limited so that it cannot be implemented.19 The State must ensure that people can freely exercise their freedom of association without fear of being subjected to some 15 Case of Baena Ricardo et al., supra note 13, para. 158. 16 ILO. Decisions of the Committee on Freedom of Association: 233rd Report, Case No. 1233 (El Salvador), para. 682; 238th Report, Case No. 1262 (Guatemala), para. 280; 239th Report, Cases Nos. 1176, 1195 and 1215 (Guatemala), para. 225(c); 294th Report, Case No. 1761 (Colombia), para. 726; 259th Report, Cases Nos. 1429, 1434, 1436, 1457 and 1465 (Colombia), para. 660; see also, Human Rights Committee, U.N., López Burgo case. Communication 52/1979: Uruguay. 29/07/81. CCPR/C/13/D/52/1979. (Case law); and ICHR. Case 4425 (Guatemala), Decision No. 38/81 of June 25, 1981, first and second operative paragraphs. 2. 17 Eur. Court H.R. Plattform “Ärzte für das Leben” v Austria, Judgment of 21 June 1988, Series A no. 139, par. 32; and Cf. Eur. Court H.R. Gustafsson v Sweden, Judgment of 25 April 1996, Reports 1996II, para. 45. 18 Cf. Eur. Court H.R. Young, James and Webster v United Kingdom, Judgment of 13 August 1981, Series A no. 44, para. 52. 19 Cf. Eur. Court H.R. Young, James and Webster v United Kingdom, supra note 18, para. 56; and Eur. Court H.R. Plattform “Ärzte für das Leben” v Austria, supra note 17, para. 32.