66 are not just any persons….” The Judicial Career Council confirmed this decision on August 24, 2011, and concluded that it had been duly established that the alleged victim [t]ook active part in the partisan political demonstration staged in the vicinity of Toncontín Airport, with flags bearing the insignia of the different political organizations and ideologies represented there. In addition, the newspapers with the country’s widest circulation consistently mentioned that because of Attorney LOPEZ LONE’s participation, he was regarded as a partisan politician, given his role as Judge on the San Pedro Sula Sentencing Court. Hence, by his conduct he violated Article 319 (2) of the Constitution […] and Article 3 (6) of the Law on the Organization, Functions and Authorities of the Courts […] as such conduct is incompatible with exercise of the office of judge, as provided in Article 49 of the Judicial Career Service Act and Article 156 of its Regulations. 219. From the foregoing it is self-evident that the disciplinary administrative proceeding that removed Adán López Lone from the office of Judge of the San Pedro Sula Sentencing Court was because of his participation in a political demonstration held to protest the coup d’état in Honduras, and to that extent clearly affected the exercise of his right to freedom of expression and his right of assembly, protected by Article 15 of the Convention. 220. The Inter-American Commission has maintained that the right to demonstrate publicly or to engage in social protest as a means to mobilize society to take active part in public discourse and assert rights, is an essential element of the exercise of democracy and, as such, is protected by both the right of assembly protected under Article 15 of the American Convention, and the right to freedom of expression, protected by Article 13 of that instrument. As other international bodies for the protection of human rights have held, 300 the expression of opinions is one of the purposes of the right of assembly; hence, exercise of the right of assembly is premised upon the effective enjoyment of the right to freedom of expression. Of course, the most impoverished sectors frequently do not have access to the traditional channels to make their complaints known, such as the press; the institutional complaint mechanisms may be either lacking or not very effective; so for them, protest becomes a vital vehicle for effective and inclusive citizen participation in public affairs.301 221. This becomes even more relevant when, as happened in the case under study, an institutional and democratic crisis occurs that erects prodigious obstacles to criticism and public discourse. As the Commission observed, “[w]eak public institutions, government corruption and other problems often prevent human rights violations from being brought to light and punished. In countries affected by such problems, the exercise of freedom of expression has become the main means by which 300 See, for example, ECHR, Case of Vogt v. Germany, Judgment of September 26, 1995, Series A, No. 323, paragraph 64; ECHR, Case of Rekvényi v. Hungary, Judgment of May 20, 1999, Report on Judgements and Decisions 1999-III, paragraph 58; ECHR, Case of Young, James and Webster v. the United Kingdom, Judgment of August 13, 1981, Series A, No. 44, para. 57; ECHR, Case of Refah Partisi (The Welfare Party) and others v. Turkey, Judgment of July 31, 2001, para. 44, available at http://www.echr.coe.int; ECHR, Case of United Communist Party of Turkey and others v. Turkey, Judgment of January 30, 1998, Report 1998-I, para. 42. IACHR. Annual Report 2005. Report of the Office of the Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression. Chapter V. Public Demonstrations as an Exercise of Freedom f Expression and Freedom of Assembly. OEA/Ser.L/V/II.124. Doc. 7. February 27, 2006. Paragraph 6. Available at: http://www.oas.org/en/iachr/expression/showarticle.asp?artID=662&lID=1 301 IACHR. Annual Report 2005. Report of the Office of the Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression. Chapter V. Public Demonstrations as an Exercise of Freedom of Expression and Freedom of Assembly. OEA/Ser.L/V/II.124. Doc. 7. February 27, 2006. Paragraphs 129 to 149. Available at: http://www.oas.org/en/iachr/expression/showarticle.asp?artID=662&lID=1