86 suspension, and dismissal must be objective and reasonable,” and “that persons do not suffer discrimination in the exercise” of this right.”352 However, in subsequent case law, specifically the case of Reverón Trujillo, the Court elaborated where it wrote that access under general conditions of equality would be an insufficient guarantee were it not accompanied by effective protection of tenure in the office to which one aspires.353 292. The Court has concluded that Article 23 of the Convention protects not just the rights of its beneficiaries but also their “opportunities”. This means that the State has an obligation to ensure, through positive measures, that every person who is the titulaire of political rights has the opportunity to exercise those rights. 354 This, in turn, means that the State must create optimum conditions and mechanisms to ensure that political rights can be exercised effectively.355 The United Nations Human Rights Committee has written that the guarantee of protection applies to both access to and tenure in the public service of one’s country, under general conditions of equality and non-discrimination, especially in the case of suspension and dismissal proceedings.”356 293. Certain details are unique to the present case, as the alleged victims were performing activities against the coup d’état in Honduras; they were judges and members of the “Asociación de Jueces por la Democracia.” As pointed out in the section on established facts, during the coup d’état the AJD issued a number of public communiqués critical of the SCJ’s position and that stated that that one could not make the case that what had happened was a constitutional succession. The Commission observes that one has to be a judge in order to be a member of that association. Under its Statutes, one has to be a judge or magistrate in active service and that membership is lost when one’s status as a judge is lost. 294. As established in earlier paragraphs, both the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights made reference to the Supreme Court’s disparate application and interpretation in handling petitions filed by persons in favor of the coup and petitions filed for the protection of human rights and observance of the rule of law. The Commission notes that the disciplinary proceedings instituted against the three judges and one magistrate were precisely because of certain acts or statements made against the coup d’état and in favor of restoring democracy. The Commission notes that i) disciplinary proceedings were instituted against Judge López Lone for demonstrating in a peaceful protest in favor of re-establishment of constitutional order; ii) the disciplinary proceedings against Judge Chévez concerned his detention at a site where demonstrators were marching and his protestations over police brutality; iii) the proceedings were instituted against Magistrate Tirza Flores Lanza for having filed a petition of amparo on behalf of 352 I/A Court H.R. Case of Apitz Barbera et al. (“First Court of Administrative Disputes”) v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 5, 2008. Series C No. 182, paragraph 206. 353 I/A Court H.R., Case of Reverón Trujillo v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 30, 2009. Series C No. 197. Paragraph138. 354 I/A Court H.R., Case of Castañeda Gutman v. United Mexican States. Merits, Reparations and Costs, Judgment of August 6, 2008. Series C No. 184, Paragraph 145. 355 IACHR, Note of remission and Merits Report in Case 12.343 Edgar Fernando García et al. v. Guatemala, February 9, 2011, paragraph 149. I/A Court H.R., Case of Castañeda Gutman v. United Mexican States, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Judgment of August 6, 2008. Series C No. 184, paragraph 145. 356 Cf. Pastukhov v. Belarus (814/1998), ICCPR, A/58/40 vol. II (5 August 2003) 69 (CCPR/C/78/D/814/1998) at paras. 7.3 and 9; Adrien Mundyo Busyo, Thomas Osthudi Wongodi, René Sibu Matubuka et al. v. Democratic Republic of the Congo (933/2000), ICCPR, A/58/40 vol. II (31 July 2003) 224 (CCPR/C/78/D/933/2000) at paragraph 5.2.