87 then President Zelaya and for filing a complaint against the authorities who participated in the coup d’état; and finally, iv) the proceedings against Judge Barrios were because of a newspaper editorial written by someone else, citing the legal reasons that Judge Barrios had given in a lecture to explain why the coup d’état was not a constitutional succession. 295. In the present case, the Commission has already concluded that the disciplinary proceedings were instituted against the alleged victims against the backdrop of the coup d’état, and their purpose was to silence the alleged victims’ criticism of the event. To do this, the State employed laws riddled with ambiguity and imprecision. The authorities who presided over the disciplinary apparatus did not afford the alleged victims the guarantees of competence, independence and impartiality and conducted the proceedings without the necessary guarantees of due process. The result of all this was that, in an abusive and arbitrary exercise of State power, the judges who were the victims in this case were disciplined for actions that are permissible under the American Convention. 296. Given the circumstances, the Commission believes that subjecting the judges and magistrate to disciplinary proceedings in retaliation for their criticism of the coup d’état in order to dismiss them from office –which meant that they would lose their membership in the Associationconstitutes arbitrary interference on the part of the State calculated to restrict their exercise of their political rights and their freedom of association, in violation of the rights protected under articles 16 and 23 of the American Convention, read in conjunction with Article 1(1) thereof and to the detriment of Guillermo López Lone, Ramón Barrios, Luis Alonso Chévez de la Rocha and Tirza Flores Lanza. E. Personal integrity (Article 5 of the American Convention, read in conjunction with Article 1 thereof) 297. Article 5(1) of the American Convention provides that “[e]very person has the right to have his physical, mental, and moral integrity respected.” 298. The Commission observes that the petitioners’ allegations concern the material and moral damages caused by the violations of the victims’ rights as a result of the disciplinary proceedings instituted against them. Because those allegations allude to the effects of violations already established by the Commission in this report, the Commission believes it does not have sufficient information to consider a stand-alone violation caused by the actions or omissions that the State incurred against the judges and magistrate. Nevertheless, the Commission considers that the State has a duty to redress the consequences of the violations of the victims’ rights, among them the circumstances narrated by the petitioners. F. Personal Liberty (Article 7 of the American Convention, read in conjunction with Article 1 thereof) 299. The Commission takes as established fact that Judge Luis Alonso Chévez was deprived of his liberty on August 12, 2009, by a member of the national police, because he was mistakenly identified as being a demonstrator in one of the marches staged to protest the coup d’état. The arrest was made without a court order and even though the victim was not apprehended in the commission of any crime. According to the facts established, Judge Chévez was taken to a police station but was not advised of the reasons for his arrest, was not entered into the log book and there was no judicial oversight of his arrest. A writ of habeas corpus was issued ordering Judge Chévez’ immediate release. Given the circumstances