60 further argued that the disciplinary sanctions ordered in the case of the alleged victims were warranted because they “made political statements […] incompatible with the independence and impartiality required of them under the laws that apply to them.” The State also underscored the claim that the alleged victims’ actions were not justified by events in Honduras, since there was no coup d’état; it also argued that because “the Honduran State did not violate the Honduran legal system or the American Convention, the petitioners are misleading the Commission by claiming political motivations.” 199. Clearly the parties disagree on the scope of the alleged victims’ right to freedom of expression as judges in the Judicial Branch, and on the legitimacy of the various measures taken by the State in this case, against the backdrop of the coup d’état. To determine whether there has been a violation of Article 13 of the American Convention, the first order of business is some general observations on the scope and permissible restrictions of the right to freedom of expression in the case of judicial officials. Based on these observations, the Commission will then decide whether there was, in fact, some restriction or limitation of each alleged victim’s exercise of freedom of expression and if so, whether that limitation or restriction fulfilled the requirements established in Article 13(2) of the Convention. 200. Ultimately, what the Commission will analyze is whether, as the petitioners contend, the administrative disciplinary proceedings to which the alleged victims were subjected were a means of bringing indirect pressure to bear to silence officials in the Judicial Branch from speaking out against the coup d’état, in violation of Article 13(3) of the American Convention. 1. The right to freedom of thought and expression enjoyed by officials in the judicial branch 201. Under the American Convention, freedom of expression is the right of every person, under conditions of equality and without discrimination of any kind or on any grounds. As the case law has held, ownership of the right to freedom of expression cannot be confined to a specific profession or group of persons, or to the realm of freedom of the press.279 The broad perspective adopted in the American Convention includes public officials, who do no forfeit their basic rights upon taking office; instead they enjoy the same broad freedom of expression that every other person enjoys.280 The Commission considers that being public officials, judges also enjoy this right. 202. Inter-American doctrine and case law have allowed that the exercise of the right to freedom of expression by public officials has certain specific connotations and distinctive characteristics.281 The Commission considers that officials in the judicial branch have a special duty to 279 I/A Court H.R. Case of Tristán Donoso v. Panama. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of January 27, 2009 Series C No. 193, paragraph 114. 280 The European Court of Human Rights has on a number of occasions maintained that the right protected by Article 10 of the European Convention extends to public officials and employees. See European Court of Human Rights, Vogt v. Germany, paragraph 53 (on a public high school teacher’s right to freedom of thought and expression); Wille v. Lichtenstein, paragraphs 41 et seq (on a judge’s freedom of expression on his views on the competence of the Constitutional Court); Ahmed and others v. United Kingdom, paragraph 56 (on the restrictions of certain public officials’ participation in politics), and others. 281 In this regard, the inter-American organs have maintained that State officials not only enjoy the right to freedom of expression; under certain circumstances, exercise of that right may be a duty (I/A Court H.R. Case of Ríos et al. v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of January 28, 2009. Series C No. 194, paragraph 139; I/A Court H.R., Case of Perozo et al. v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of January 28, 2009. Series C No. 195, paragraph 151). As the Inter-American Court wrote, “making a statement on public-interest matters is