13 “legal and justified,” endorsing a sanction that had an impact on the possibility of Mr. Lagos del Campo being able to continue belonging to that company and representing the interests of the other workers.63 The Inter-American Court concluded that: 162. In addition, the Court has established that freedom of association has two dimensions, because it relates both to the right of the individual to associate freely and to use the appropriate means to exercise this freedom, and to the right of the members of a group to achieve certain objectives together and to benefit from them. The Court has also established that the rights derived from representing the interests of a group are twofold, because they relate both to the right of the individual who exercises the mandate or appointment, and the right of the collectivity to be represented, so that the violation of the right of the former (the representative) results in the violation of the right of the latter (the person or collectivity represented). […]64 38. There can be no doubt that the violations experienced by Mr. Campos del Lago do not fall within an analysis of the rights of labor unions, union members or union representatives and their correlative rights. To the contrary, this case has a different particularity than the cases that this Inter-American Court has examined in relation to the right to freedom of association, because Mr. Lagos del Campo was a representative of a workers’ association. Thus, I agree fully with the judgment when it indicates that: 157. In this regard, the Court finds that the protection of the right to labor-related freedom of association is subsumed not only in the protection of labor unions, their members and their representatives. […] 158. However, the protection recognized to the right to freedom of association in the context of labor extends to organizations that, even though their nature differs from that of labor unions, seek to represent the legitimate interests of workers. This protection is derived from Article 16 of the American Convention, which protects freedom of association for any purpose, as well as from other international instruments that recognize special protection to freedom of association to protect the interests of workers, without specifying that this protection is restricted to the labor union sphere. […]65 39. Moreover, the Inter-American Court added that: 159. These principles concur with the protection recognized by the ILO, which has clarified that the expression “workers’ representatives” includes those recognized as such under domestic law or practice, whether union representatives or “elected representatives, namely, representatives who are freely elected by the workers of the undertaking in accordance with the provisions of national laws or regulations or of collective agreements and whose functions do not include activities which are recognized as the exclusive prerogative of trade unions in the country concerned.” 160. Similarly, it has been interpreted [by the European Court] that the representatives of the workers of an undertaking should enjoy effective protection against any act that could prejudice them, including dismissal based on their condition as workers’ representatives, or on their activities arising from this representation. Also, the national authorities must ensure that disproportionate penalties do not dissuade the representatives from seeking to express and defend the workers’ interests.66 40. As can be seen, what the Inter-American Court reflects with these findings is that both labor unions and their representatives, and workers’ associations and their representatives, enjoy a specific protection for the proper performance of their functions, 67 without any distinction between them. In this regard, the Inter-American Court concluded that: 158. […] Thus Article 26 of the American Convention, which relates to the economic, social, educational, scientific and cultural standards set forth in the Charter of the Organization of American States, 63 Cf. Case of Lagos del Campo v. Peru, supra, para. 161. 64 Cf. Case of Lagos del Campo v. Peru, supra, para. 162. 65 Cf. Case of Lagos del Campo v. Peru, supra, paras. 157 and 158. 66 Cf. Case of Lagos del Campo v. Peru, supra, paras. 159 and 160. 67 Cf. Case of Lagos del Campo v. Peru, supra, para. 157.