58 171. The States must take into consideration the information that differentiates the members of the Indian populations from that of the population in general, and that make up their cultural identity.118 Language one of the most important elements of identity of any people, precisely because it guarantees the expression, diffusion, and transmission of their culture. 172. In the present case, the restriction on the liberty to speak Garifuna applied to some inmates of the Criminal Center of Tela was discriminatory in detriment of Mr. Alfredo López Álvarez, as a member of the Garifuna community. 173. The Court finds that by prohibiting Mr. Alfredo López Álvarez to express himself in the language of his choice, during his detention in the Criminal Center of Tela, the State applied a restriction to the exercise of his liberty of expression incompatible with the guarantee established in the Convention and that, at the same time, constituted a discriminatory act against him. 174. The above considerations lead the Court to conclude that the State is responsible for the violation of the rights to liberty of thought and expression and equal protection before the law, enshrined in Articles 13 and 24 of the American Convention, and for the non-compliance of the general obligation to respect and guarantee the rights and liberties established in Article 1(1) of the same instrument, in detriment of Mr. Alfredo López Álvarez. XII VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 16 OF THE AMERICAN CONVENTION IN RELATION WITH ARTICLE 1(1) OF THE SAME (Freedom of Association and Obligation to Respect Rights) 175. Arguments of the representatives: a) the arrest of Mr. Alfredo López Álvarez had the purpose of separating him from his tasks as a defender of human rights in his quality of member of the Committee of Lands and of the Honduran Black Fraternal Organization. His transfer to the National Penitentiary of Támara, in Puerto Cortés, helped to the objective of separating him from the Committee of Defense of the Rights of the Inmates, and b) the actions of the Honduran authorities are part of a pattern of persecution and harassment against the defenders of human rights; said persecution is not limited to the present case, since it has cost some Honduran indigenous leaders their life. 176. Arguments of the Commission: It did not present arguments regarding this Article. 118 Cf. Case of the Indigenous Community Yakye Axa. Judgment of June 17, 2005. Series C No. 125, para. 51.